SHAKESPEAREAN  PLAYHOUSES 


MAP  OF  LONDON  SHOWING  THE  PLAYHOUSES 

BLACKFRIARS.  (FIRST)  1576  -1381 . 
BL«f  KFRIARMSEOONM  1598-H655. 
CURTAIN.    1577-  after  1627. 

Fortune.  (First)  1000-1021. 
Fortune  (Second)  1023-1001 
Globe,  (First)    1599-  1013. 
Globe,  (Second)  iom-1645 
HOPE.    1013  -  after  1632. 
Phoenix  .« Cockpit.  101  7  -afttri6M 
Red  Bull. about  1605  -  aftu  1003. 
Rose.  1587-1605. 
Salisbury  Court.  1620-1666. 

SWAN,   1595  -nfttr-1632 

Theatre,  1576-1598. 

WHITEFR1ARS.  about  1G05  -16140. 


Shakespearean 
Playhouses 

A  HISTORY  OF  ENGLISH 
THEATRES  from  the  BEGIN- 
NINGS to  the  RESTORATION 


By  JOSEPH    QUINCY   ADAMS 

Cornell  University 


Boston,  New  York,  Chicago,  Dallas,  San  Francisco 

Houghton  Mifflin  Company 
tElje  Hitoer0iDepre$0CambnDgf 


Shakespearean 
Playhouses 

A  HISTORY  OF  ENGLISH 
THEATRES  from  the  BEGIN- 
NINGS to  the  RESTORATION 


By  JOSEPH   QUINCY  ADAMS 

Cornell  University 


Boston,  New  York,  Chicago,  Dallas,  San  Francisco 

Houghton  Mifflin  Company 
tEtje  HibersiDe  press  Cambria  ge 


qoS 


COPYRIGHT,   1917,  BY  JOSEPH   QUINCY  ADAMS 

RIGHTS  RESERVED  INCLUDING  THE  RIGHT  TO  REPRODUCE 
THIS  BOOK  OR  PAETS  THEREOF  IN  ANY  FORM 


IN  MEWORIAM 


tEht  KiutrsjiOc  $re«* 

CAMBRIDGE  ■   MASSACHUSETTS 
PRINTED  IN  THE  U.S.A. 


TO 

LANE  COOPER 

IN  GRATITUDE  AND  ESTEEM 


9:?1648 


PREFACE 

THE  method  of  dramatic  representation  in  the 
time  of  Shakespeare  has  long  received  close 
study.  Among  those  who  have  more  recently  de- 
voted their  energies  to  the  subject  may  be  men- 
tioned W.  J.  Lawrence,  T.  S.  Graves,  G.  F.  Rey- 
nolds, V.  E.  Albright,  A.  H.  Thorndike,  and  B. 
Neuendorff,  each  of  whom  has  embodied  the  results 
of  his  investigations  in  one  or  more  noteworthy 
volumes.  But  the  history-  of  the  playhouses  them- 
selves, a  topic  equally  important,  has  not  hitherto 
been  attempted.  If  we  omit  the  brief  notices  of  the 
theatres  in  Edmond  Malone's  The  Plays  and  Poems 
of  William  Shakespeare  (1790)  and  John  Payne 
Collier's  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry 
(183 1 ),  the  sole  book  dealing  even  in  part  with  the 
topic  is  T.  F.  Ordish's  The  Early  London  Theatres 
in  the  Fields.  This  book,  however,  though  good  for 
its  time,  was  written  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago, 
before  most  of  the  documents  relating  to  early 
theatrical  history  were  discovered,  and  it  discusses 
only  six  playhouses.  The  present  volume  takes 
advantage  of  all  the  materials  made  available  by 
the  industry  of  later  scholars,  and  records  the  his- 
tory of  seventeen  regular,  and  five  temporary  or 
projected,  theatres.  The  book  is  throughout  the 
result   of    a    first-hand    examination    of   original 


viii  PREFACE 

sources,  and  represents  an  independent  interpreta- 
tion of  the  historical  evidences.  As  a  consequence 
of  this,  as  well  as  of  a  comparison  (now  for  the  first 
time  possible)  of  the  detailed  records  of  the  several 
playhouses,  many  conclusions  long  held  by  schol- 
ars have  been  set  aside.  I  have  made  no  systematic 
attempt  to  point  out  the  cases  in  which  I  depart 
from  previously  accepted  opinions,  for  the  scholar 
will  discover  them  for  himself;  but  I  believe  I  have 
never  thus  departed  without  being  aware  of  it,  and 
without  having  carefully  weighed  the  entire  evi- 
dence. Sometimes  the  evidence  has  been  too  volu- 
minous or  complex  for  detailed  presentation;  in 
these  instances  I  have  had  to  content  myself  with 
reference  by  footnotes  to  the  more  significant 
documents  bearing  on  the  point. 

In  a  task  involving  so  many  details  I  cannot 
hope  to  have  escaped  errors  —  errors  due  not  only 
to  oversight,  but  also  to  the  limitations  of  my 
knowledge  or  to  mistaken  interpretation.  For  such 
I  can  offer  no  excuse,  though  I  may  request  from 
my  readers  the  same  degree  of  tolerance  which  I 
have  tried  to  show  other  laborers  in  the  field.  In 
reproducing  old  documents  I  have  as  a  rule  modern- 
ized the  spelling  and  the  punctuation,  for  in  a  work 
of  this  character  there  seems  to  be  no  advantage  in 
preserving  the  accidents  and  perversities  of  early 
scribes  and  printers.  I  have  also  consistently  al- 
tered the  dates  when  the  Old  Style  conflicted  with 
our  present  usage. 


PREFACE  ix 

I  desire  especially  to  record  my  indebtedness  to 
the  researches  of  Professor  C.  W.  Wallace,  the 
extent  of  whose  services  to  the  study  of  the  Tudor- 
Stuart  drama  has  not  yet  been  generally  realized, 
and  has  sometimes  been  grudgingly  acknowl- 
edged; and  to  the  labors  of  Mr.  E.  K.  Chambers 
and  Mr.  W.  W.  Greg,  who,  in  the  Collections  of 
The  Malone  Society,  and  elsewhere,  have  rendered 
accessible  a  wealth  of  important  material  dealing 
with  the  early  history  of  the  stage. 

Finally,  I  desire  to  express  my  gratitude  to  Mr. 
Hamilton  Bell  and  the  editor  of  The  Architectural 
Record  for  permission  to  reproduce  the  illustration 
and  description  of  Inigo  Jones's  plan  of  the  Cock- 
pit; to  the  Governors  of  Dulwich  College  for  per- 
mission to  reproduce  three  portraits  from  the 
Dulwich  Picture  Gallery,  one  of  which,  that  of 
Joan  Alleyn,  has  not  previously  been  reproduced; 
to  Mr.  C.  W.  Redwood,  formerly  technical  artist 
at  Cornell  University,  for  expert  assistance  in 
making  the  large  map  of  London  showing  the  sites 
of  the  playhouses,  and  for  other  help  generously 
rendered;  and  to  my  colleagues,  Professor  Lane 
Cooper  and  Professor  Clark  S.  Northup,  for  their 
kindness  in  reading  the  proofs. 

Joseph  Quinxy  Adams 

Ithaca,  New  York 


CONTENTS 

^    I.  The  Inn-Yards I 

II.  The  Hostility  of  the  City   .       .       .       .18 

III.  The  Theatre 27 

IV.  The  Curtain 75 

V.  The  First  Blackfriars 91 

VI.  St.  Paul's in 

VII.  The  Bankside  and  the  Bear  Garden         .  119 

VIII.  Newington  Butts 134 

IX.  The  Rose 142 

X.  The  Swan 161 

XI.  The  Second  Blackfriars       ....  182 

XII.  The  Globe 234 

XIII.  The  Fortune 267 

XIV.  The  Red  Bull 294 

XV.  Whitefriars 310 

XVI.  The  Hope 324 

XVII.  Rosseter's  Blackfriars,  or  Porter's  Hall  342 
XVIII.  The  Phoznix,  or  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane    348 

XIX.  Salisbury  Court 368 

XX.  The  Cockpit-in-Court,  or  Theatre  Royal 

at  Whitehall 384 

XXI.  Miscellaneous:  Wolf's  Theatre  in  Night- 
ingale Lane;  The  Projected  "Amphi- 
theatre"; Ogilby's  Dublin  Theatre; 
The  French  Players' Temporary  Thea- 
tre in  Drury  Lane;  Davenant's  Pro- 
jected Theatre  in  Fleet  Street  .        .   410 

Bibliography 433 

Maps  and  Views  of  London        .       .        .  457 
Index 461 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

Map  of  London  showing  the  Playhouses    Frontispiece 

An  Inn-Yard 4 

Map  of  London  showing  the  Inn-Playhouses       .  9 

The  Site  of  the  First  Playhouses    ....  27 
The  Site  of  the  First  Playhouses    .       .       .       .31 

A  Plan  of  Burbage's  Holywell  Property     .        .  33 

The  Site  of  the  Curtain  Playhouse      ...  79 

Blackfriars  Monastery 93 

The  Site  of  the  Two  Blackfriars  Playhouses     .  94 

A  Plan  of  Farrant's  Playhouse        ....  97 

The  Bankside 120 

The  Bankside 121 

The  Bear-  and  Bull-baiting  Rings  .       .       .       .123 

The  Bear  Garden 127 

The  Bear  Garden  and  the  Rose       ....  147 

The  Bear  Garden  and  the  Rose        ....  149 

Joan  Woodward  Alleyn 152 

The  Manor  of  Paris  Garden  and  the  Swan  Play- 
house       163 

The  Swan  Playhouse 165 

The  Interior  of  the  Swan  Playhouse     .       .       .  169 
Plan  illustrating  the  Second  Blackfriars  Play- 
house               187 

Remains  of  Blackfriars 196 

Richard  Burbage 234 

William  Shakespeare 238 


xiv  ILLUSTRATIONS 

A  Plan  of  the  Globe  Property  ....  242 
The  Bear  Garden,  the  Rose,  and  the  First  Globe  245 
The  Bear  Garden,  the  Rose,  and  the  First  Globe  246 

The  First  Globe 248 

The  First  Globe 253 

Merian's  View  of  London   .       .       .       .       .       .  256 

The  Second  Globe 260 

The  Traditional  Site  of  the  Globe  .  .  .  262 
The  Site  of  the  Fortune  Playhouse       .       .       .  270 

The  Fortune  Playhouse? 278 

Edward  Alleyn 282 

The  Site  of  the  Red  Bull  Playhouse     .       .       .  294 

A  Plan  of  Whitefriars 312 

Michael  Drayton 314 

The  Sites  of  the  Whitefriars  and  the  Salisbury 
Court  Playhouses     .       .       .       .       .       .       .318 

The  Hope  Playhouse,  or  Second  Bear  Garden  .  326 
The  Hope  Playhouse,  or  Second  Bear  Garden  .  331 
The  Site  of  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane  .  .  350 
A  Plan  of  the  Salisbury  Court  Property     .       .371 

The  Cockpit  at  Whitehall 390 

Inigo  Jones's  Plans  for  the  Cockpit-in-Court     .  396 
Fisher's  Survey  of  Whitehall  showing  the  Cock- 
pit-in-Court                .       .398 

The  Theatro  Olympico  at  Vicenza  .       .       .  399 

The  Cockpit-in-Court  .       .       .       .       .       .       .  407 


SHAKESPEAREAN  PLAYHOUSES 


Shakespearean  Playhouses 


CHAPTER   I 
THE  INN- YARDS 

BEFORE  the  building  of  regular  playhouses 
the  itinerant  troupes  of  actors  were  accus- 
tomed, except  when  received  into  private  homes, 
to  give  their  performances  in  any  place  that  chance 
provided,  such  as  open  street-squares,  barns,  town- 
halls,  moot-courts,  schoolhouses,  churches,  and  — 
most  frequently  of  all,  perhaps  —  the  yards  of 
inns.  These  yards,  especially  those  of  carriers, 
inns,  were  admirably  suited  to  dramatic  represen- 
tations, consisting  as  they  did  of  a  large  open  court 
surrounded  by  two  or  more  galleries.  Many  exam- 
ples of  such  inn-yards  are  still  to  be  seen  in  various 
parts  of  England;  a  picture  of  the  famous  White 
Hart,  in  Southwark,  is  given  opposite  page  4 
by  way  of  illustration.  In  the  yard  a  temporary 
platform  —  a  few  boards,  it  may  be,  set  on  barrel- 
heads 1  —  could  be  erected  for  a  stage;  in  the  ad- 
jacent stables  a  dressing-room  could  be  provided 
for  the  actors;  the  rabble  —  always  the  larger  and 

1  "Thou  shalt  not  need  to  travel  with  thy  pumps  full  of  gravel 
any  more,  after  a  blind  jade  and  a  hamper,  and  stalk  upon 
boards  and  barrel-heads."   {Poetaster,  in,  i.) 


i      SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

more  enthusiastic  part  of  the  audience  —  could 
be  accommodated  with  standing-room  about  the 
stage;  while  the  more  aristocratic  members  of  the 
audience  could  be  comfortably  seated  in  the  gal- 
leries overhead.  Thus  a  ready-made  and  very  serv- 
iceable theatre  was  always  at  the  command  of 
the  players;  and  it  seems  to  have  been  frequently 
made  use  of  from  the  very  beginning  of  profes- 
sionalism in  acting. 

One  of  the  earliest  extant  moralities,  Mankind, 
acted  by  strollers  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  gives  us  an  interesting  glimpse  of  an  inn- 
yard  performance.  The  opening  speech  makes 
distinct  reference  to  the  two  classes  of  the  audi- 
ence described  above  as  occupying  the  galleries 
and  the  yard : 

O  ye  sovereigns  that  sit,  and  ye  brothers  that  stand 
right  up. 

The  "brothers,"  indeed,  seem  to  have  stood  up 
so  closely  about  the  stage  that  the  actors  had 
great  difficulty  in  passing  to  and  from  their  dress- 
ing-room. Thus,  Nowadays  leaves  the  stage  with 
the  request: 

Make  space,  sirs,  let  me  go  out! 

New  Gyse  enters  with  the  threat: 

Out  of  my  way,  sirs,  for  dread  of  a  beating! 

While  Nought,  with  even  less  respect,  shouts : 

Avaunt,  knaves!  Let  me  go  by! 


THE   INN-YARDS  3 

Language  such  as  this  would  hardly  be  appropri- 
ate if  addressed  to  the  "sovereigns"  who  sat  in 
the  galleries  above;  but,  as  addressed  to  the 
"brothers,"  it  probably  served  to  create  a  general 
feeling  of  good  nature.  And  a  feeling  of  good  na- 
ture was  desirable,  for  the  actors  were  facing  the 
difficult  problem  of  inducing  the  audience  to  pay 
for  its  entertainment. 

This  problem  they  met  by  taking  advantage  of 
the  most  thrilling  moment  of  the  plot.  The  Vice 
and  his  wicked  though  jolly  companions,  having 
wholly  failed  to  overcome  the  hero,  Mankind,  de- 
cide to  call  to  their  assistance  no  less  a  person  than 
the  great  Devil  himself;  and  accordingly  they 
summon  him  with  a  "Walsingham  wystyle." 
Immediately  he  roars  in  the  dressing-room,  and 
shouts : 

I  come,  with  my  legs  under  me! 

There  is  a  flash  of  powder,  and  an  explosion  of  fire- 
works, while  the  eager  spectators  crane  their  necks 
to  view  the  entrance  of  this  "  abhomynabull " 
personage.  But  nothing  appears;  and  in  the  ex- 
pectant silence  that  follows  the  actors  calmly  an- 
nounce a  collection  of  money,  facetiously  making 
the  appearance  of  the  Devil  dependent  on  the  lib- 
erality of  the  audience: 

New  Gyse.    Now  ghostly  to  our  purpose,  worshipful 
sovereigns, 
We  intend  to  gather  money,  if  it  please  your  negligence. 
For  a  man  with  a  head  that  of  great  omnipotence  — 


4       SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Nowadays  [interrupting].   Keep  your  tale,  in  goodness,  I 
pray  you,  good  brother! 

[Addressing  the  audience,  and  pointing  towards  the 
dressing-room,  where  the  Devil  roars  again.] 
He  is  a  worshipful  man,  sirs,  saving  your  reverence. 
He  loveth  no  groats,  nor  pence,  or  two-pence; 
Give  us  red  royals,  if  ye  will  see  his  abominable  presence. 
New  Gyse.   Not  so!  Ye  that  may  not  pay  the  one,  pay 
the  other. 

And  with  such  phrases  as  "God  bless  you,  mas- 
ter," "Ye  will  not  say  nay,"  "Let  us  go  by,"  "Do 
them  all  pay,"  "Well  mote  ye  fare,"  they  pass 
through  the  audience  gathering  their  groats,  pence, 
and  twopence;  after  which  they  remount  the  stage, 
fetch  in  the  Devil,  and  continue  their  play  without 
further  interruption. 

In  the  smaller  towns  the  itinerant  players  might, 
through  a  letter  of  recommendation  from  their 
noble  patron,  or  through  the  good-will  of  some 
local  dignitary,  secure  the  use  of  the  town-hall, 
of  the  schoolhouse,  or  even  of  the  village  church. 
In  such  buildings,  of  course,  they  could  give  their 
performances  more  advantageously,  for  they  could 
place  money-takers  at  the  doors,  and  exact  ade- 
quate payment  from  all  who  entered.  In  the  great 
city  of  London,  however,  the  players  were  neces- 
sarily forced  to  make  use  almost  entirely  of  public 
inn-yards  —  an  arrangement  which,  we  may  well 
believe,  they  found  far  from  satisfactory.  Not 
being  masters  of  the  inns,  they  were  merely  tol- 
erated; they  had  to  content  themselves  with  has- 


AN  INN-YARD 

The  famous  White  Hart,  in  Southwark.  The  ground-plan  shows  the  arrangement  of 
a  carriers'  inn  with  the  stabling  below;  the  guest  rooms  were  on  the  upper  floors. 


THE   INN-YARDS  5 

tily  provided  and  inadequate  stage  facilities;  and, 
worst  of  all,  for  their  recompense  they  had  to  trust 
to  a  hat  collection,  at  best  a  poor  means  of  secur- 
ing money.  Often  too,  no  doubt,  they  could  not 
get  the  use  of  a  given  inn-yard  when  they  most 
needed  it,  as  on  holidays  and  festive  occasions; 
and  at  all  times  they  had  to  leave  the  public  in 
uncertainty  as  to  where  or  when  plays  were  to  be 
seen.  Their  street  parade,  with  the  noise  of  trum- 
pets and  drums,  might  gather  a  motley  crowd  for 
the  yard,  but  in  so  large  a  place  as  London  it  was 
inadequate  for  advertisement  among  the  better 
classes.  And  as  the  troupes  of  the  city  increased 
in  wealth  and  dignity,  and  as  the  playgoing  pub- 
lic grew  in  size  and  importance,  the  old  makeshift 
arrangement  became  more  and  more  unsatisfac- 
tory. 

At  last  the  unsatisfactory  situation  was  re- 
lieved by  the  specific  dedication  of  certain  large 
inns  to  dramatic  purposes;  that  is,  the  proprietors 
of  certain  inns  found  it  to  their  advantage  to  sub- 
ordinate their  ordinary  business  to  the  urgent  de- 
mands of  the  actors  and  the  playgoing  public. 
Accordingly  they  erected  in  their  yards  permanent 
stages  adequately  equipped  for  dramatic  repre- 
sentations, constructed  in  their  galleries  wooden 
benches  to  accommodate  as  many  spectators  as 
possible,  and  were  ready  to  let  the  use  of  their 
buildings  to  the  actors  on  an  agreement  by  which 
the  proprietor  shared  with  the  troupe  in  the  "tak- 


6       SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

ings"  at  the  door.  Thus  there  came  into  exist- 
ence a  number  of  inn-playhouses,  where  the  actors, 
as  masters  of  the  place,  could  make  themselves 
quite  at  home,  and  where  the  public  without  spe- 
cial notification  could  be  sure  of  always  finding 
dramatic  entertainment. 

Richard  Flecknoe,  in  his  Discourse  of  the  Eng- 
lish Stage  (1664),  goes  so  far  as  to  dignify  these 
reconstructed  inns  with  the  name  "theatres."  At 
first,  says  he,  the  players  acted  "without  any  cer- 
tain theatres  or  set  companions,  till  about  the 
beginning  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  they  began 
here  to  assemble  into  companies,  and  set  up 
theatres,  first  in  the  city  (as  in  the  inn-yards  of 
the  Cross  Keys  and  Bull  in  Grace  and  Bishop's 
Gate  Street  at  this  day  to  be  seen),  till  that  fanatic 
spirit  [i.e.,  Puritanism],  which  then  began  with 
the  stage  and  after  ended  with  the  throne,  ban- 
ished them  thence  into  the  suburbs"  —  that  is, 
into  Shoreditch  and  the  Bankside,  where,  outside 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  puritanical  city  fathers, 
they  erected  their  first  regular  playhouses. 
^"The  "banishment"  referred  to  by  Flecknoe  was 
the  Order  of  the  Common  Council  issued  on 
December  6,  1574.  This  famous  document  de- 
scribed public  acting  as  then  taking  place  "  in  great 
inns,  having  chambers  and  secret  places  adjoining 
to  their  open  stages  and  galleries";  and  it  ordered 
that  henceforth  "no  inn-keeper,  tavern-keeper, 
nor  other  person  whatsoever  within  the  liberties 


THE   INN- YARDS  7 

of  this  city  shall  openly  show,  or  play,  nor  cause 
or  suffer  to  be  openly  showed  or  played  within 
the  house  yard  or  any  other  place  within  the  liber- 
ties of  this  city,  any  play,"  etc.  ^— « 

How  many  inns  were  let  on  special  occasions  for 
dramatic  purposes  we  cannot  say;  but  there  were 
five  "great  inns,"  more  famous  than  the  rest, 
which  were  regularly  used  by  the  best  London 
troupes.  Thus  Howes,  in  his  continuation  of 
Stow's  Annals  (p.  1004),  in  attempting  to  give  a 
list  of  the  playhouses  which  had  been  erected 
"within  London  and  the  suburbs,"  begins  with 
the  statement,  "Five  inns,  or  common  osteryes, 
turned  to  playhouses."  These  five  were  the  Bell 
and  the  Cross  Keys,  hard  by  each  other  in  Grace- 
church  Street,  the  Bull,  in  Bishopsgate  Street,  the 
Bell  Savage,  on  Ludgate  Hill,  and  the  Boar's 
Head,  in  Whitechapel  Street  without  Aldgate.1 

Although  Flecknoe  referred  to  the  Order  of  the 
Common  Council  as  a  "banishment,"  it  did  not 
actually  drive  the  players  from  the  city.  They 
were  able,  through  the  intervention  of  the  Privy 
Council,  and  on  the  old  excuse  of  rehearsing  plays 

1  All  historians  of  the  drama  have  confused  this  great  carriers' 
inn  with  the  Boar's  Head  in  Eastcheap  made  famous  by  Falstaff. 
The  error  seems  to  have  come  from  the  Analytical  Index  of  the 
Remembrancia,  which  (p.  355)  incorrectly  catalogues  the  letter 
of  March  31,  1602,  as  referring  to  the  "Boar's  Head  in  East- 
cheap."  The  letter  itself,  however,  when  examined,  gives  no  in- 
dication whatever  of  Eastcheap,  and  other  evidence  shows  con- 
clusively that  the  inn  was  situated  in  Whitechapel  just  outside 
of  Aldgate. 


8       SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

for  the  Queen's  entertainment,  to  occupy  the  inns 
for  a  large  part  of  each  year.1  John  Stockwood, 
in  a  sermon  preached  at  Paul's  Cross,  August  24, 
1578,  bitterly  complains  of  the  "eight  ordinary 
places"  used  regularly  for  plays,  referring,  it 
seems,  to  the  five  inns  and  the  three  playhouses — 
the  Theatre,  Curtain,  and  Blackfriars  —  recently 
opened  to  the  public. 

Richard  Reulidge,  in  A  Monster  Lately  Found 
Out  and  Discovered  (1628),  writes  that  "soon  after 
1580"  the  authorities  of  London  received  per- 
mission from  Queen  Elizabeth  and  her  Privy 
Council  "to  thrust  the  players  out  of  the  city, 
and  to  pull  down  all  playhouses  and  dicing-houses 
within  their  liberties:  which  accordingly  was 
effected;  and  the  playhouses  in  Gracious  Street 
[i.e.,  the  Bell  and  the  Cross  Keys],  Bishopsgate 
Street  [i.e.,  the  Bull],  that  nigh  Paul's  [i.e.,  Paul's 
singing  school?],  that  on  Ludgate  Hill  [i.e.,  the 
Bell  Savage],  and  the  Whitefriars  2  were  quite 
put  down  and  suppressed  by  the  care  of  these  re- 
ligious senators." 

Yet,  in  spite  of  what  Reulidge  says,  these  five 
inns  continued  to  be  used  by  the  players  for  many 

1  See  especially  The  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  and  The  Remem- 
brancia  of  the  City  of  London. 

2  There  is  some  error  here.  The  city  had  no  jurisdiction  over 
Whitefriars,  or  Blackfriars  either;  but  there  was  a  playhouse  in 
Blackfriars  at  the  time,  and  it  was  suppressed  in  1584,  though 
not  by  the  city  authorities.  Possibly  Reulidge  should  have  writ- 
ten "Whitechapel." 


folate// 

iwssm 


Pi 


kKT 


-*nl      irSctP^ 


» 


=5 


u  — i 

J2  —I 

H  S 

M  o 


io    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

years.1  No  doubt  they  were  often  used  surrep- 
titiously. In  Martin's  Month's  Mind  (1589),  we 
read  that  a  person  "for  a  penie  may  have  farre 
better  [entertainment]  by  oddes  at  the  Theatre 
and  Curtaine,  and  any  blind  playing  house  everie 
day." 2  But  the  more  important  troupes  were 
commonly  able,  through  the  interference  of  the 
Privy  Council,  to  get  official  permission  to  use 
the  inns  during  a  large  part  of  each  year. 

There  is  not  enough  material  about  these  early 
inn-playhouses  to  enable  one  to  write  their  sepa- 
rate histories.  Below,  however,  I  have  recorded  in 
chronological  order  the  more  important  references 
to  them  which  have  come  under  my  observation. 

1557.  On  September  5  the  Privy  Council  in- 
structed the  Lord  Mayor  of  London  "that  some 
of  his  officers  do  forthwith  repair  to  the  Boar's 
Head  without  Aldgate,  where,  the  Lords  are  in- 
formed, a  lewd  play  called  A  Sackful  of  News  shall 
be  played  this  day,"  to  arrest  the  players,  and  send 
their  playbook  to  the  Council.3 

1573.  During  this  year  there  were  various  fenc- 
ing contests  held  at  the  Bull  in  Bishopsgate.4 

1577.  In  February  the  Office  of  the  Revels 
made  a  payment  of  lod.  " ffor  the  cariadge  of  the 

1  The  Remembrancia  shows  that  the  inn-playhouses  remained 
for  many  years  as  sharp  thorns  in  the  side  of  the  puritanical  city 
fathers. 

1  Grosart,  Nash,  i,  179. 

3  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  vi,  168. 

4  W.  Rendle,  The  Inns  of  Old  Southwark,  p.  235. 


THE    INN- YARDS  n 

parts  of  ye  well  counterfeit  from  the  Bell  in  gra- 
cious strete  to  St.  Johns,  to  be  performed  for  the 
play  of  Cutwell."  l 

1579.  On  June  23  James  Burbage  was  arrested 
for  the  sum  of  £5  13^.  "as  he  came  down  Gracious 
Street  towards  the  Cross  Keys  there  to  a  play." 
The  name  of  the  proprietor  of  this  inn-playhouse 
is  preserved  in  one  of  the  interrogatories  con- 
nected with  the  case:  "Item.  Whether  did  you, 
John  Hynde,  about  xiii  years  past,  in  anno  1579, 
the  xxiii  of  June,  about  two  of  the  clock  in  the 
afternoon,  send  the  sheriff's  officer  unto  the  Cross 
Keys  in  Gratious  Street,  being  then  the  dwelling 
house  of  Richard  Ibotson,  citizen  and  brewer  of 
London,"  etc.2  Nothing  more,  I  believe,  is  known 
of  this  person. 

1579.  Stephen  Gosson,  in  The  Schoole  of  Abuse, 
writes  favorably  of  "the  two  prose  books  played 
at  the  Bell  Savage,  where  you  shall  find  never  a 
word  without  wit,  never  a  line  without  pith,  never 
a  letter  placed  in  vain;  the  Jew  and  Ptolome, 
shown  at  the  Bull  .  .  .  neither  with  amorous  ges- 
ture wounding  the  eye,  nor  with  slovenly  talk  hurt- 
ing the  ears  of  the  chast  hearers."  3 

1  A.  Feuillerat,  Documents  Relating  to  the  Office  of  the  Revels 
in  the  Time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  p.  277. 

1  Burbage  v.  Brayne,  printed  in  C.  W.  Wallace,  The  First  Lon- 
don Theatre,  pp.  82,  90.  Whether  Burbage  was  going  to  the  Cross 
Keys  as  a  spectator  or  as  an  actor  is  not  indicated;  but  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  he  was  then  playing  at  the  inn,  although  he  was 
proprietor  of  the  Theatre. 

a  Arber's  English  Reprints,  p.  40. 


12     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

1582.  On  July  1  the  Earl  of  Warwick  wrote 
to  the  Lord  Mayor  requesting  the  city  authorities 
to  "give  license  to  my  servant,  John  David,  this 
bearer,  to  play  his  profest  prizes  in  his  science  and 
profession  of  defence  at  the  Bull  in  Bishopsgate, 
or  some  other  convenient  place  to  be  assigned 
within  the  liberties  of  London."  The  Lord  Mayor 
refused  to  allow  David  to  give  his  fencing  contest 
"in  an  inn,  which  was  somewhat  too  close  for  in- 
fection, and  appointed  him  to  play  in  an  open 
place  of  the  Leaden  Hall,"  which,  it  may  be  added, 
was  near  the  Bull.1 

1583.  William  Rendle,  in  The  Inns  of  Old 
Southwark,  p.  235,  states  that  in  this  year  "Tarle- 
ton,  Wilson,  and  others  note  the  stay  of  the  plague, 
and  ask  leave  to  play  at  the  Bull  in  Bishopsgate, 
or  the  Bell  in  Gracechurch  Street,"  citing  as  his 
authority  merely  "City  MS."  The  Privy  Council 
on  November  26,  1583,  addressed  to  the  Lord 
Mayor  a  letter  requesting  "that  Her  Majesty's 
Players  [i.e.,  Tarleton,  Wilson,  etc.]  may  be  suf- 
fered to  play  within  the  liberties  as  heretofore 
they  have  done."  2  And  on  November  28  the  Lord 
Mayor  issued  to  them  a  license  to  play  "at  the 
sign  of  the  Bull  in  Bishopsgate  Street,  and  the 
sign  of  the  Bell  in  Gracious  Street,  and  nowhere 
else  within  this  City."  3 

1  See  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  I,  55-57. 

2  See  The  Remembrancia,  in  The  Malone  Society's  Collections, 
1,66. 

8  C.  W.  Wallace,  The  First  London  Theatre,  p.  11. 


THE   INN-YARDS  13 

*587-  "James  Cranydge  played  his  master's 
prize  the  21  of  November,  1587,  at  the  Bellsavage 
without  Ludgate,  at  iiij  sundry  kinds  of  weapons. 
.  .  .   There  played  with  him  nine  masters."  * 

Before  1588.  In  TarltorCs  Jests  2  we  find  a  num- 
ber of  references  to  that  famous  actor's  pleasantries 
in  the  London  inns  used  by  the  Queen's  Players. 
It  is  impossible  to  date  these  exactly,  but  Tarle- 
ton  became  a  member  of  the  Queen's  Players  in 
1583,  and  he  died  in  1588. 

At  the  Bull  in  Bishops-gate-street,  where  the 
Queen's  Players  oftentimes  played,  Tarleton  coming 
on  the  stage,  one  from  the  gallery  threw  a  pippin  at 
him. 

There  was  one  Banks,  in  the  time  of  Tarleton,  who 
served  the  Earl  of  Essex,  and  had  a  horse  of  strange 
qualities;  and  being  at  the  Cross  Keys  in  Gracious 
Street  getting  money  with  him,  as  he  was  mightily 
resorted  to.  Tarleton  then,  with  his  fellows  playing 
at  the  Bell  by,  came  into  the  Cross  Keys,  amongst 
many  people,  to  see  fashions. 

At  the  Bull  at  Bishops-gate  was  a  play  of  Henry 
the  Fifth. 

1  MS.  Sloane,  2530,  f.  6-7,  quoted  by  J.  O.  Halliwell  in  his 
edition  of  TarltorCs  Jests,  p.  xi.  The  Bell  Savage  seems  to  have 
been  especially  patronized  by  fencers.  George  Silver,  in  his  Para- 
doxe  of  Defence  (1599),  tells  how  he  and  his  brother  once  chal- 
lenged two  Italian  fencers  to  a  contest  "to  be  played  at  the  Bell 
Savage  upon  the  scaffold,  when  he  that  went  in  his  fight  faster 
back  than  he  ought,  should  be  in  danger  to  break  his  neck  off 
the  scaffold." 

1  First  printed  in  161 1 ;  reprinted  by  J.  0.  Halliwell  for  The 
Shakespeare  Society  in  1844. 


i4     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

The  several  "jests"  which  follow  these  intro- 
ductory sentences  indicate  that  the  inn-yards  dif- 
fered in  no  essential  way  from  the  early  public 
playhouses. 

1588.  "John  Mathews  played  his  master's 
prize  the  31  day  of  January,  1588,  at  the  Bell 
Savage  without  Ludgate."  1 

1589.  In  November  Lord  Burghley  directed  the 
Lord  Mayor  to  "give  order  for  the  stay  of  all  plays 
within  the  city."   In  reply  the  Lord  Mayor  wrote: 

According  to  which  your  Lordship's  good  pleasure, 
I  presently  sent  for  such  players  as  I  could  hear  of; 
so  as  there  appeared  yesterday  before  me  the  Lord 
Strange's  Players,  to  whom  I  specially  gave  in  charge 
and  required  them  in  Her  Majesty's  name  to  forbear 
playing  until  further  order  might  be  given  for  their 
allowance  in  that  respect.  Whereupon  the  Lord 
Admiral's  Players  very  dutifully  obeyed;  but  the 
others,  in  very  contemptuous  manner  departing 
from  me,  went  to  the  Cross  Keys  and  played  that 
afternoon.2 

1594.  On  October  8,  Henry,  Lord  Hunsdon, 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  and  the  patron  of  Shake- 
speare's company,  wrote  to  the  Lord  Mayor: 

1  MS.  Shane,  2530,  f.  6-7,  quoted  by  Halliwell  in  his  edition 
of  Tarlton's  Jests,  p.  xi.  There  is  some  difficulty  with  the  date. 
One  of  the  "masters"  before  whom  the  prize  was  played  was 
"  Rycharde  Tarlton,"  whom  Halliwell  takes  to  be  the  famous  actor 
of  that  name;  but  Tarleton  the  actor  died  on  September  3,  1588. 
Probably  Halliwell  in  transcribing  the  manuscript  silently  mod- 
ernized the  date  from  the  Old  Style. 

2  Lansdowne  MSS.  60,  quoted  by  Collier,  History  of  English 
Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  1,  265. 


THE   INN-YARDS  15 

After  my  hearty  commendations.  Where  my  now 
company  of  players  have  been  accustomed  for  the 
better  exercise  of  their  quality,  and  for  the  service 
of  Her  Majesty  if  need  so  require,  to  play  this  winter 
time  within  the  city  at  the  Cross  Keys  in  Gracious 
Street,  these  are  to  require  and  pray  your  Lordship 
(the  time  being  such  as,  thanks  to  God,  there  is  now 
no  danger  of  the  sickness)  to  permit  and  suffer  them 
so  to  do.1 

By  such  devices  as  this  the  players  were  usually 
able  to  secure  permission  to  act  "within  the  city" 
during  the  disagreeable  months  of  the  winter 
when  the  large  playhouses  in  the  suburbs  were 
difficult  of  access. 

1594.  Anthony  Bacon,  the  elder  brother  of 
Francis,  came  to  lodge  in  Bishopsgate  Street.  This 
fact  very  much  disturbed  his  good  mother,  who 
feared  lest  his  servants  might  be  corrupted  by  the 
plays  to  be  seen  at  the  Bull  near  by.2 

1596.  William  Lambarde,  in  his  Perambulation 
of  Kent,*  observes  that  none  of  those  who  go  "to 
Paris  Garden,  the  Bell  Savage,  or  Theatre,  to  be- 
hold bear-baiting,  interludes,  or  fence  play,  can 
account  of  any  pleasant  spectacle  unless  they  first 
pay  one  penny  at  the  gate,  another  at  the  entry 
of  the  scaffold,  and  the  third  for  a  quiet  standing." 

1  The   Remembrancia,   The    Malone   Society's    Collections,    i, 

73- 

1  See  VV.  Rendle,  The  Inns  of  Old  Southtvark,  p.  236. 

•  The  passage  does  not  appear  in  the  earlier  edition  of  1576, 
though  it  was  probably  written  shortly  after  the  erection  of  the 
Theatre  in  the  autumn  of  1576. 


1 6     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

1602.  On  March  31  the  Privy  Council  wrote  to 
the  Lord  Mayor  that  the  players  of  the  Earl  of 
Oxford  and  of  the  Earl  of  Worcester  had  been 
"joined  by  agreement  together  in  one  company, 
to  whom,  upon  notice  of  Her  Majesty's  pleasure, 
at  the  suit  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  toleration  hath 
been  thought  meet  to  be  granted."  The  letter 
concludes : 

And  as  the  other  companies  that  are  allowed, 
namely  of  me  the  Lord  Admiral,  and  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain, be  appointed  their  certain  houses,  and  one 
and  no  more  to  each  company,  so  we  do  straightly  re- 
quire that  this  third  company  be  likewise  [appointed] 
to  one  place.  And  because  we  are  informed  the 
house  called  the  Boar's  Head  is  the  place  they  have 
especially  used  and  do  best  like  of,  we  do  pray  and 
require  you  that  the  said  house,  namely  the  Boar's 
Head,  may  be  assigned  unto  them.1 

That  the  strong  Oxford-Worcester  combination 
should  prefer  the  Boar's  Head  to  the  Curtain  or  the 
Rose  Playhouse,2  indicates  that  the  inn-yard  was 
not  only  large,  but  also  well-equipped  for  acting. 

1604.  In  a  draft  of  a  license  to  be  issued  to 
Queen  Anne's  Company,  those  players  are  al- 
lowed to  act  "as  well  within  their  now  usual 
houses,  called  the  Curtain  and  the  Boar's  Head, 
within  our  County  of  Middlesex,  as  in  any  other 
playhouse  not  used  by  others."  3 

1  The  Remembrancia,  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  I,  85. 

2  They  had  to  use  the  Rose  nevertheless;  see  page  158. 
8  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  265. 


THE   INN-YARDS  17 

In  1608  the  Boar's  Head  seems  to  have  been 
occupied  by  the  newly  organized  Prince  Charles's 
Company.  In  William  Kelly's  extracts  from  the 
payments  of  the  city  of  Leicester  we  find  the  entry : 
"Itm.  Given  to  the  Prince's  Players,  of  White- 
chapel,  London,  xxi-." 

In  1664,  as  Flecknoe  tells  us,  the  Cross  Keys 
and  the  Bull  still  gave  evidence  of  their  former 
use  as  playhouses;  perhaps  even  then  they  were 
occasionally  let  for  fencing  and  other  contests.  In 
1666  the  great  fire  completely  destroyed  the  Bell, 
the  Cross  Keys,  and  the  Bell  Savage;  the  Bull,  how- 
ever, escaped,  and  enjoyed  a  prosperous  career  for 
many  years  after.  Samuel  Pepys  was  numbered 
among  its  patrons,  and  writers  of  the  Restoration 
make  frequent  reference  to  it.  What  became  of 
the  Boar's  Head  without  Aldgate  I  am  unable  to 
learn;  its  memory,  however,  is  perpetuated  to-day 
in  Boar's  Head  Yard,  between  Middlesex  Street 
and  Goulston  Street,  Whitechapel. 


CHAPTER   II 
THE   HOSTILITY   OF  THE    CITY 

AS  the  actors  rapidly  increased  in  number  and 
importance,  and  as  Londoners  nocked  in  ever 
larger  crowds  to  witness  plays,  the  animosity  of 
two  forces  was  aroused,  Puritanism  and  Civic  Gov- 
ernment, —  forces  which  opposed  the  drama  for 
different  reasons,  but  with  almost  equal  fervor. 
And  when  in  the  course  of  time  the  Governors  of 
the  city  themselves  became  Puritans,  the  com- 
bined animosity  thus  produced  was  sufficient  to 
drive  the  players  out  of  London  into  the  suburbs. 

The  Puritans  attacked  the  drama  as  contrary 
to  Holy  Writ,  as  destructive  of  religion,  and  as  a 
menace  to  public  morality.  Against  plays,  players, 
and  playgoers  they  waged  in  pulpit  and  pam- 
phlet a  warfare  characterized  by  the  most  intense 
fanaticism.  The  charges  they  made  —  of  ungodli- 
ness, idolatrousness,  lewdness,  profanity,  evil  prac- 
tices, enormities,  and  "abuses"  of  all  kinds  —  are 
far  too  numerous  to  be  noted  here;  they  are  in- 
teresting chiefly  for  their  unreasonableness  and  for 
the  violence  with  which  they  were  urged. 

And,  after  all,  however  much  the  Puritans  might 
rage,  they  were  helpless ;  authority  to  restrain  act- 
ing was  vested  in  the  Lord  Mayor,  his  brethren 


THE   HOSTILITY   OF   THE   CITY     19 

the  Aldermen,  and  the  Common  Council.  The 
attitude  of  these  city  officials  towards  the  drama 
was  unmistakable:  they  had  no  more  love  for  the 
actors  than  had  the  Puritans.  They  found  that 
"plays  and  players"  gave  them  more  trouble  than 
anything  else  in  the  entire  administration  of 
municipal  affairs.  The  dedication  of  certain  "great 
inns"  to  the  use  of  actors  and  to  the  entertain- 
ment of  the  pleasure-loving  element  of  the  city  cre- 
ated new  and  serious  problems  for  those  charged 
with  the  preservation  of  civic  law  and  order.  The 
presence  in  these  inns  of  private  rooms  adjoin- 
ing the  yard  and  balconies  gave  opportunity  for 
immorality,  gambling,  fleecing,  and  various  other 
"evil  practices"  —  an  opportunity- which,  if  we 
may  believe  the  Common  Council,  was  not  wasted. 
Moreover,  the  proprietors  of  these  inns  made  a 
large  share  of  their  profits  from  the  beer,  ale,  and 
other  drinks  dispensed  to  the  crowds  before,  dur- 
ing, and  after  performances  (the  proprietor  of  the 
Cross  Keys,  it  will  be  recalled,  was  described  as 
"citizen  and  brewer  of  London");  and  the  re- 
sultant intemperance  among  "such  as  frequented 
the  said  plays,  being  the  ordinary  place  of  meet- 
ing for  all  vagrant  persons,  and  masterless  men 
that  hang  about  the  city,  theeves,  horse-stealers, 
whoremongers,  cozeners,  cony-catching  persons, 
practicers  of  treason,  and  such  other  like,"  1  led 

1  So  the  Lord  Mayor  characterized  playgoers;  see  The  Remem- 
brancia,  in  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  I,  75. 


20    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

to  drunkenness,  frays,  bloodshed,  and  often  to 
general  disorder.  Sometimes,  as  we  know,  turbu- 
lent apprentices  and  other  factions  met  by  ap- 
pointment at  plays  for  the  sole  purpose  of  starting 
riots  or  breaking  open  jails.  "Upon  Whitsunday," 
writes  the  Recorder  to  Lord  Burghley,  "by  rea- 
son no  plays  were  the  same  day,  all  the  city  was 
quiet."  l 

Trouble  of  an  entirely  different  kind  arose  when 
in  the  hot  months  of  the  summer  the  plague  was 
threatening.  The  meeting  together  at  plays  of 
"great  multitudes  of  the  basest  sort  of  people" 
served  to  spread  the  infection  throughout  the  city 
more  quickly  and  effectively  than  could  anything 
else.  On  such  occasions  it  was  exceedingly  difficult 
for  the  municipal  authorities  to  control  the  actors, 
who  were  at  best  a  stubborn  and  unruly  lot;  and 
often  the  pestilence  had  secured  a  full  start  before 
acting  could  be  suppressed. 

These  troubles,  and  others  which  cannot  here 
be  mentioned,  made  one  of  the  Lord  Mayors 
exclaim  in  despair:  "The  Politique  State  and 
Government  of  this  City  by  no  one  thing  is 
so  greatly  annoyed  and  disquieted  as  by  players 
and  plays,  and  the  disorders  which  follow  there- 

55    1 

upon.    * 

I  This  annoyance,  serious  enough  in  itself,  was 

aggravated  by  the  fact  that  most  of  the  troupes 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  164. 

2  The  Remembrancia,  in  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  69. 


THE   HOSTILITY   OF   THE  CITY     21 

were  under  the  patronage  of  great  noblemen,  and 
some  were  even  high  in  favor  with  the  Queen. 
As  a  result,  the  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  Lord 
Mayor  and  his  Aldermen  to  regulate  the  players 
were  often  interfered  with  by  other  or  higher  au- 
thority. Sometimes  it  was  a  particular  nobleman, 
whose  request  was  not  to  be  ignored,  who  inter- 
vened in  behalf  of  his  troupe;  most  often,  how- 
ever, it  was  the  Privy  Council,  representing  the 
Queen  and  the  nobility  in  general,  which  cham- 
pioned the  cause  of  the  actors  and  countermanded 
the  decrees  of  the  Lord  Mayor  and  his  brethren. 
One  of  the  most  notable  things  in  the  City's  Re- 
membrancia  is  this  long  conflict  of  authority  be- 
tween the  Common  Council  and  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil over  actors  and  acting. 

In  1573  the  situation  seems  to  have  approached 
a  crisis.  The  Lord  Mayor  had  become  strongly 
puritanical,  and  in  his  efforts  to  suppress  "stage- 
plays"  was  placing  more  and  more  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  the  actors.  The  temper  of  the  Mayor 
is  revealed  in  two  entries  in  the  records  of  the 
Privy  Council.  On  July  13,  1573,  the  Lords  of 
the  Council  sent  a  letter  to  him  requesting  him 
"to  permit  liberty  to  certain  Italian  players";  six 
days  later  they  sent  a  second  letter,  repeating  the 
request,  and  "marveling  that  he  did  it  not  at  their 
first  request."  l  His  continued  efforts  to  suppress 
the  drama  finally  led  the  troupes  to  appeal  for  re- 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  vm,  131,  132. 


ii     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

lief  to  the  Privy  Council.  On  March  22,  1574,  the 
Lords  of  the  Council  dispatched  "a  letter  to  the 
Lord  Mayor  to  advertise  their  Lordships  what 
causes  he  hath  to  restrain  plays."  His  answer  has 
not  been  preserved,  but  that  he  persisted  in  his 
hostility  to  the  drama  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
in  May  the  Queen  openly  took  sides  with  the 
players.  To  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  troupe  she 
issued  a  special  royal  license,  authorizing  them  to 
act  "as  well  within  our  city  of  London  and  liber- 
ties of  the  same,  as  also  within  the  liberties  and 
freedoms  of  any  our  cities,  towns,  boroughs,  etc., 
whatsoever";  and  to  the  mayors  and  other  offi- 
cers she  gave  strict  orders  not  to  interfere  with 
such  performances:  "Willing  and  commanding 
you,  and  every  of  you,  as  ye  tender  our  pleasure, 
to  permit  and  suffer  them  herein  without  any 
your  lets,  hindrances,  or  molestation  during  the 
term  aforesaid,  any  act,  statute,  proclamation, 
or  commandment  heretofore  made,  or  hereafter 
to  be  made,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

This  license  was  a  direct  challenge  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  Lord  Mayor.  He  dared  not  answer 
it  as  directly;  but  on  December  6,  1574,  he  se- 
cured from  the  Common  Council  the  passage  of 
an  ordinance  which  placed  such  heavy  restrictions 
upon  acting  as  virtually  to  nullify  the  license 
issued  by  the  Queen,  and  to  regain  for  the 
Mayor  complete  control  of  the  drama  within  the 
city.  The  Preamble  of  this  remarkable  ordinance 


THE   HOSTILITY   OF   THE   CITY     23 

clearly  reveals   the   puritanical   character  of   the 
City  Government: 

Whereas  heretofore  sundry  great  disorders  and 
inconveniences  have  been  found  to  ensue  to  this 
city  by  the  inordinate  haunting  of  great  multitudes 
of  people,  specially  youths,  to  plays,  interludes,  and 
shews:  namely,  occasion  of  frays  and  quarrels;  evil 
practises  of  incontinency  in  great  inns  having  cham- 
bers and  secret  places  adjoining  to  their  open  stages 
and  galleries;  inveigling  and  alluring  of  maids,  spe- 
cially orphans  and  good  citizens'  children  under 
age,  to  privy  and  unmeet  contracts;  the  publishing 
of  unchaste,  uncomly,  and  unshamefaced  speeches 
and  doings;  withdrawing  of  the  Queen's  Majesty's 
subjects  from  divine  service  on  Sundays  and  holy 
days,  at  which  times  such  plays  were  chiefly  used; 
unthrifty  waste  of  the  money  of  the  poor  and  fond 
persons;  sundry  robberies  by  picking  and  cutting  of 
purses;  uttering  of  popular,  busy,  and  seditious  mat- 
ters; and  many  other  corruptions  of  youth,  and  other 
enormities;  besides  that  also  sundry  slaughters  and 
maimings  of  the  Queen's  subjects  have  happened 
by  ruins  of  scaffolds,  frames,  and  stages,  and  by 
engines,  weapons,  and  powder  used  in  plays.  And 
whereas  in  time  of  God's  visitation  by  the  plague 
such  assemblies  of  the  people  in  throng  and  press  have 
been  very  dangerous  for  spreading  of  infection.  .  .  . 
And  for  that  the  Lord  Mayor  and  his  brethren  the 
Aldermen,  together  with  the  grave  and  discreet 
citizens  in  the  Common  Council  assembled,  do  doubt 
and  fear  lest  upon  God's  merciful  withdrawing  his 
hand  of  sickness  from  us  (which  God  grant),  the  peo- 
ple, specially  the  meaner  and  most  unruly  sort,  should 
with   sudden  forgetting  of  His   visitation,   without 


24     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

fear  of  God's  wrath,  and  without  due  respect  of  the 
good  and  politique  means  that  He  hath  ordained 
for  the  preservation  of  common  weals  and  peoples  in 
health  and  good  order,  return  to  the  undue  use  of 
such  enormities,  to  the  great  offense  of  God.  .  .  .l 

The  restrictions  on  playing  imposed  by  the 
ordinance  may  be  briefly  summarized : 

1.  Only  such  plays  should  be  acted  as  were  free 
from  all  unchastity,  seditiousness,  and  "uncomely 

matter." 

2.  Before  being  acted  all  plays  should  be  "first 
perused  and  allowed  in  such  order  and  form, 
and  by  such  persons  as  by  the  Lord  Mayor  and 
Court  of  Aldermen  for  the  time  being  shall  be 
appointed." 

3.  Inns  or  other  buildings  used  for  acting,  and 
their  proprietors,  should  both  be  licensed  by  the 
Lord  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen. 

4.  The  proprietors  of  such  buildings  should  be 
"bound  to  the  Chamberlain  of  London"  by  a  suffi- 
cient bond  to  guarantee  "  the  keeping  of  good  order, 
and  avoiding  of"  the  inconveniences  noted  in  the 
Preamble. 

5.  No  plays  should  be  given  during  the  time  of 
sickness,  or  during  any  inhibition  ordered  at  any 
time  by  the  city  authorities. 

6.  No  plays  should  be  given  during  "any  usual 
time  of  divine  service,"  and  no  persons  should  be 

1  For  the  complete  document  see  W.  C.  Hazlitt,  The  English 
Drama  and  Stage,  p.  27. 


THE   HOSTILITY   OF   THE   CITY     25 

admitted  into  playing  places  until  after  divine 
services  were  over. 

7.  The  proprietors  of  such  places  should  pay 
towards  the  support  of  the  poor  a  sum  to  be  agreed 
upon  by  the  city  authorities. 

In  order,  however,  to  avoid  trouble  with  the 
Queen,  or  those  noblemen  who  were  accustomed 
to  have  plays  given  in  their  homes  for  the  private 
entertainment  of  themselves  and  their  guests,  the 
Common  Council  added,  rather  grudgingly,  the 
following  proviso : 

Provided  alway  that  this  act  (otherwise  than 
touching  the  publishing  of  unchaste,  seditious,  and 
unmeet  matters)  shall  not  extend  to  any  plays, 
interludes,  comedies,  tragedies,  or  shews  to  be 
played  or  shewed  in  the  private  house,  dwelling,  or 
lodging  of  any  nobleman,  citizen,  or  gentleman, 
which  shall  or  will  then  have  the  same  there  so 
played  or  shewed  in  his  presence  for  the  festivity  of 
any  marriage,  assembly  of  friends,  or  other  like 
cause,  without  public  or  common  collections  of 
money  of  the  auditory  or  beholders  thereof. 

Such  regulations  if  strictly  enforced  would  prove 
very  annoying  to  the  players.  But,  as  the  Com- 
mon Council  itself  informs  us,  "these  orders  were 
not  then  observed."  The  troupes  continued  to 
play  in  the  city,  protected  against  any  violent  ac- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  municipal  authorities  by 
the  known  favor  of  the  Queen  and  the  frequent  in- 
terference of  the  Privy  Council.  This  state  of  af- 
fairs was  not,  of  course,  comfortable  for  the  actors; 


16     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

but  it  was  by  no  means  desperate,  and  for  several 
years  after  the  passage  of  the  ordinance  of  1574 
they  continued  without  serious  interruption  to 
occupy  their  inn-playhouses. 

The  long-continued  hostility  of  the  city  au- 
thorities, however,  of  which  the  ordinance  of  1574 
was  an  ominous  expression,  led  more  or  less  di- 
rectly to  the  construction  of  special  buildings  de- 
voted to  plays  and  situated  beyond  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Common  Council.  As  the  Reverend 
John  Stockwood,  in  A  Sermon  Preached  at  Paules 
Crosse,  1 578,  indignantly  puts  it: 

Have  we  not  houses  of  purpose,  built  with  great 
charges  for  the  maintenance  of  plays,  and  that  with- 
out the  liberties,  as  who  would  say  "  There,  let  them 
say  what  they  will  say,  we  will  play  !" 

Thus  came  into  existence  playhouses;  and  with 
them  dawned  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  Eng- 
lish drama. 


'^^ftM^^o 


THE   SITE  OF  TH 

Finsbury  Field  and  Holywell.  The  man  walking  from: 

(From  Agas's  Map  of  London,  repr 


M§g^^&£^gg%?£§tt 


£>V 


1'I.AN  HOI  SES 
©wards  Shoreditch  i>  ju>t  entering  Holywell  Lane. 
ie  i  ity  as  it  was  about  1560.) 


CHAPTER   III 
THE  THEATRE 

THE  hostility  of  the  city  to  the  drama  was  un- 
questionably the  main  cause  of  the  erection 
of  the  first  playhouse;  yet  combined  with  this 
were  two  other  important  causes,  usually  over- 
looked. The  first  was  the  need  of  a  building  spe-  ^ 
cially  designed  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
players  and  of  the  public,  a  need  yearly  growing 
more  urgent  as  plays  became  more  complex,  act- 
ing developed  into  a  finer  art,  and  audiences  in- 
creased in  dignity  as  well  as  in  size.  The  second 
and  the  more  immediate  cause  was  the  appear- 
ance of  a  man  with  business  insight  enough  to  see 
that  such  a  building  would  pay.  The  first  play- 
house, we  should  remember,  was  not  erected  by  a 
troupe  of  actors,  but  by  a  money-seeking  indi- 
vidual.1 Although  he  was  himself  an  actor,  and 
the  manager  of  a  troupe,  he  did  not,  it  seems,  take 
the  troupe  into  his  confidence.  In  complete  inde- 
pendence of  any  theatrical  organization   he  pro- 

1  I  emphasize  this  point  because  the  opposite  is  the  accepted 
opinion.  We  find  it  expressed  in  The  Cambridge  History  of  Eng- 
lish Literature,  vi,  431,  as  follows:  "Certain  players,  finding  the 
city  obdurate,  and  unwilling  to  submit  to  its  severe  regulations, 
began  to  look  about  them  for  some  means  of  carrying  on  their 
business  out  of  reach  of  the  mayor's  authority,"  etc. 


2  8     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

ceeded  with  the  erection  of  his  building  as  a  pri- 
vate speculation;  and,  we  are  told,  he  dreamed 
of  the  "continual  great  profit  and  commodity- 
through  plays  that  should  be  used  there  every 
week." 

This  man,  "the  first  builder  of  playhouses,"  — 
and,  it  might  have  been  added,  the  pioneer  in  a 
new  field  of  business,  —  was  James  Burbage,  orig- 
inally, as  we  are  told  by  one  who  knew  him  well, 
"by  occupation  a  joiner;  and  reaping  but  a  small 
living  by  the  same,  gave  it  over  and  became  a 
common  player  in  plays."  *  As  an  actor  he  was 
more  successful,  for  as  early  as  1572  we  find  him 
at  the  head  of  Leicester's  excellent  troupe. 

Having  in  1575  conceived  the  notion  of  erecting 
a  building  specially  designed  for  dramatic  enter- 
tainments, he  was  at  once  confronted  with  the 
problem  of  a  suitable  location.  Two  conditions 
narrowed  his  choice:  first,  the  site  had  to  be  out- 
side the  jurisdiction  of  the  Common  Council;  sec- 
ondly, it  had  to  be  as  near  as  possible  to  the  city. 

No  doubt  he  at  once  thought  of  the  two  sub- 
urbs that  were  specially  devoted  to  recreation,  the 
Bankside  to  the  south,  and  Finsbury  Field  to  the 
north  of  the  city.  The  Bankside  had  for  many 
years  been  associated  in  the  minds  of  Londoners 
with  "sports  and  pastimes."  Thither  the  citizens 
were  accustomed   to  go  to  witness  bear-baiting 

1  Deposition  by  Robert  Myles,  1592,  printed  in  Wallace's 
The  First  London  Theatre,  p.  141. 


THE   THEATRE  29 

and  bull-baiting,  to  practice  archery,  and  to  en- 
gage in  various  athletic  sports.  Thither,  too,  for 
many  years  the  actors  had  gone  to  present  their 
plays.  In  1545  King  Henry  VIII  had  issued  a 
proclamation  against  vagabonds,  ruffians,  idle 
persons,  and  common  players,1  in  which  he  re- 
ferred to  their  "fashions  commonly  used  at  the 
Bank."  The  Bankside,  however,  was  associated 
with  the  lowest  and  most  vicious  pleasures  of  Lon- 
don, for  here  were  situated  the  stews,  bordering 
the  river's  edge.  Since  the  players  were  at  this 
time  subject  to  the  bitterest  attacks  from  the 
London  preachers,  Burbage  wisely  decided  not 
to  erect  the  first  permanent  home  of  the  drama 
in  a  locality  already  a  common  target  for  puritan 
invective. 

The  second  locality,  Finsbury  Field,  had  nearly 
all  the  advantages,  and  none  of  the  disadvantages, 
of  the  Bankside.  Since  13 15  the  Field  had  been 
in  the  possession  of  the  city,2  and  had  been  used 
as  a  public  playground,  where  families  could  hold 
picnics,  falconers  could  fly  their  hawks,  archers 
could  exercise  their  sport,  and  the  militia  on  holi- 
days could  drill  with  all  "the  pomp  and  circum- 
stance of  glorious  war."  In  short,  the  Field  was 
eminently  respectable,  was  accessible  to  the  city, 
and  was  definitely  associated  with  the  idea  of  en- 

1  See  page  134. 

1  See  The  Remembrancia,  p.  274;  Stow,  Survey.  The  Corpora- 
tion of  London  held  the  manor  on  lease  from  St.  Paul's  Cathedral 
»ntil  1867. 


3o     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

tertainment.  The  locality,  therefore,  was  almost 
ideal  for  the  purpose  Burbage  had  in  mind.1 

The  new  playhouse,  of  course,  could  not  be 
erected  in  the  Field  itself,  which  was  under  the 
control  of  the  city;  but  just  to  the  east  of  the  Field 
certain  vacant  land,  part  of  the  dissolved  Priory  of 
Holywell,  offered  a  site  in  every  way  suitable  to 
the  purpose.  The  Holywell  property,  at  the  dis- 
solution of  the  Priory,  had  passed  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Crown,  and  hence  the  Lord  Mayor 
and  the  Aldermen  could  not  enforce  municipal 
ordinances  there.  Moreover,  it  was  distant  from 
the  city  wall  not  much  more  than  half  a  mile.  The 
old  conventual  church  had  been  demolished,  the 
Priory  buildings  had  been  converted  into  resi- 
dences, and  the  land  near  the  Shoreditch  highway 
had  been  built  up  with  numerous  houses.  The 
land  next  to  the  Field,  however,  was  for  the  most 
part  undeveloped.  It  contained  some  dilapidated 
tenements,  a  few  old  barns  formerly  belonging  to 
the  Priory,  and  small  garden  plots,  conspicuous 
objects  in  the  early  maps. 

Burbage  learned  that  a  large  portion  of  this  land 
lying  next  to  the  Field  was  in  the  possession  of  a 
well-to-do  gentleman  named  Gyles  Alleyn,2  and 

1  Doubtless,  too,  Burbage  was  influenced  in  his  choice  by  the 
fact  that  he  had  already  made  his  home  in  the  Liberty  of  Shore- 
ditch,  near  Finsbury  Field. 

1  For  a  detailed  history  of  the  property  from  the  year  1 128, 
and  for  the  changes  in  the  ownership  of  Alleyn's  portion  after 
the  dissolution,  see  Braines,  Holywell  Priory. 


THE  SITE  OF  THE  FIRST  PLAYHOUSES 

Finsbury  Field  lies  to  the  north  (beyond  Moor  Field,  the  small  rectangular 
space  next  to  the  city  wall),  and  the  Holywell  Property  lies  to  the  right  of  Fins- 
bury  Field,  between  the  Field  and  the  highway.  Holywell  Lane  divides  the  gar- 
den plots;  the  Theatre  was  erected  just  to  the  north,  and  the  Curtain  just  to  the 
south  of  this  lane,  facing  the  Field.  (From  the  Map  of  London  by  Braun  and 
Hogenbergius  representing  the  city  as  it  was  in  1554-1558.) 


32     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

that  Alleyn  was  willing  to  lease  a  part  of  his  hold- 
ing on  the  conditions  of  development  customary 
in  this  section  of  London.  These  conditions  are 
clearly  revealed  in  a  chancery  suit  of  1591: 

The  ground  there  was  for  the  most  part  converted 
first  into  garden  plots,  and  then  leasing  the  same  to 
diverse  tenants  caused  them  to  covenant  or  promise 
to  build  upon  the  same,  by  occasion  whereof  the 
buildings  which  are  there  were  for  the  most  part 
erected  and  the  rents  increased.1 

The  part  of  Alleyn's  property  on  which  Bur- 
bage  had  his  eye  was  in  sore  need  of  improvement. 
It  consisted  of  five  "paltry  tenements,"  described 
as  "old,  decayed,  and  ruinated  for  want  of  repara- 
tion, and  the  best  of  them  was  but  of  two  stories 
high,"  and  a  long  barn  "very  ruinous  and  de- 
cayed and  ready  to  have  fallen  down,"  one  half  of 
which  was  used  as  a  storage-room,  the  other  half 
as  a  slaughter-house.  Three  of  the  tenements  had 
small  gardens  extending  back  to  the  Field,  and 
just  north  of  the  barn  was  a  bit  of  "void  ground," 
also  adjoining  the  Field.  It  was  this  bit  of  "void 
ground"  that  Burbage  had  selected  as  a  suitable 
location  for  his  proposed  playhouse.  The  accom- 
panying map  of  the  property  2  will  make  clear  the 
position  of  this  "void  ground"  and  of  the  barns  and 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  I,  365.  The  suit  concerns  the 
Curtain  property,  somewhat  south  of  the  Alleyn  property,  but  a 
part  of  the  Priory. 

2  I  have  based  this  map  in  large  measure  on  the  documents 
presented  by  Braines  in  his  excellent  pamphlet,  Holywell  Priory. 


I 


CTII5  -  ALLttm  ■  GARX>FM  • 


mi  •  oat-  e>ABn 

■•ff  .)    B.utl.n4-  * 


A  PLAN  OF  BURBAGE'S  HOLYWELL  PROPERTY 

Based  on  the  lease,  and  on  the  miscellaneous  documents  printed  by  Halliwell- 
Phillipps  and  by  Braines.  The  "common  sewer"  is  now  marked  by  Curtain 
Road,  and  the  "ditch  from  the  horse-pond"  by  New  Inn  Yard. 


34     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

tenements  about  it.  Moreover,  it  will  serve  to  in- 
dicate the  exact  site  of  the  Theatre.  If  one  will 
bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  in  the  London  of  to- 
day Curtain  Road  marks  the  eastern  boundary 
of  Finsbury  Field,  and  New  Inn  Yard  cuts  off  the 
lower  half  of  the  Great  Barn,  he  will  be  able  to 
place  Burbage's  structure  within  a  few  yards.1 

The  property  is  carefully  described  in  the  lease 
—  quoted  below  —  which  Burbage  secured  from 
Alleyn,  but  the  reader  will  need  to  refer  to  the  map 
in  order  to  follow  with  ease  the  several  paragraphs 
of  description : 2 

All  those  two  houses  or  tenements,  with  appur- 
tenances, which  at  the  time  of  the  said  former  de- 
mise made  were  in  the  several  tenures  or  occupa- 
tions of  Joan  Harrison,  widow,  and  John  Dragon. 

And  also  all  that  house  or  tenement  with  the  ap- 
purtenances, together  with  the  garden  ground  lying 
behind  part  of  the  same,  being  then  likewise  in  the 
occupation  of  William  Gardiner;  which  said  garden 
plot  doth  extend  in  breadth  from  a  great  stone  wall 
there  which  doth  enclose  part  of  the  garden  then 
or  lately  being  in  the  occupation  of  the  said  Gyles, 
unto  the  garden  there  then  in  the  occupation  of 
Edwin  Colefox,  weaver,  and  in  length  from  the  same 

1  For  proof  see  Braines,  op.  cit.  t 

2  The  original  lease  may  be  found  incorporated  in  Alleyn  v. 
Street,  Coram  Rege,  1 599-1600,  printed  in  full  by  Wallace,  The 
First  London  Theatre,  pp.  163-80,  and  again  in  Alleyn  v.  Burbage, 
Queen's  Bench,  1602,  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  267-75.  The  lease,  I 
think,  was  in  English  not  Latin,  and  hence  is  more  correctly 
given  in  the  first  document;  in  the  second  document  the  scriven- 
er has  translated  it  into  Latin.  The  lease  is  also  given  in  part 
on  page  187. 


THE   THEATRE  35 

house  or  tenement  unto  a  brick  wall  there  next  unto 
the  fields  commonly  called  Finsbury  Fields. 

And  also  all  that  house  or  tenement,  with  the  ap- 
purtenances, at  the  time  of  the  said  former  demise 
made  called  or  known  by  the  name  of  the  Mill-house; 
together  with  the  garden  ground  lying  behind  part 
of  the  same,  also  at  the  time  of  the  said  former  de- 
mise made  being  in  the  tenure  or  occupation  of  the 
aforesaid  Edwin  Colefox,  or  of  his  assigns;  which  said 
garden  ground  doth  extend  in  length  from  the  same 
house  or  tenement  unto  the  aforesaid  brick  wall 
next  unto  the  aforesaid  Fields. 

And  also  all  those  three  upper  rooms,  with  the 
appurtenances,  next  adjoining  to  the  aforesaid  Mill- 
house,  also  being  at  the  time  of  the  said  former  de- 
mise made  in  the  occupation  of  Thomas  Dancaster, 
shoemaker,  or  of  his  assigns;  and  also  all  the  nether 
rooms,  with  the  appurtenances,  lying  under  the 
same  three  upper  rooms,  and  next  adjoining  also  to 
the  aforesaid  house  or  tenement  called  the  Mill- 
house,  then  also  being  in  the  several  tenures  or  occu- 
pations of  Alice  Dotridge,  widow,  and  Richard 
Brockenbury,  or  of  their  assigns;  together  with  the 
garden  ground  lying  behind  the  same,  extending  in 
length  from  the  same  nether  rooms  down  unto  the 
aforesaid  brick  wall  next  unto  the  aforesaid  Fields, 
and  then  or  late  being  also  in  the  tenure  or  occupa- 
tion of  the  aforesaid  Alice  Dotridge. 

And  also  so  much  of  the  ground  and  soil  lying  and 
being  afore  all  the  tenements  or  houses  before  granted, 
as  extendeth  in  length  from  the  outward  part  of  the 
aforesaid  tenements  being  at  the  time  of  the  making 
of  the  said  former  demise  in  the  occupation  of  the 
aforesaid  Joan  Harrison  and  John  Dragon,  unto  a 
pond  there  being  next  unto  the  barn  or  stable  then 


36     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

in  the  occupation  of  the  right  honorable  the  Earl  of 
Rutland  or  of  his  assigns,  and  in  breadth  from  the 
aforesaid  tenement  or  Mill-house  to  the  midst  of  the 
well  being  afore  the  same  tenements. 

And  also  all  that  Great  Barn,  with  the  appurte- 
nances, at  the  time  of  the  making  of  the  said  former 
demise  made  being  in  the  several  occupations  of 
Hugh  Richards,  innholder,  and  Robert  Stoughton, 
butcher;  and  also  a  little  piece  of  ground  then  in- 
closed with  a  pale  and  next  adjoining  to  the  afore- 
said barn,  and  then  or  late  before  that  in  the  occu- 
pation of  the  said  Robert  Stoughton;  together  also 
with  all  the  ground  and  soil  lying  and  being  between 
the  said  nether  rooms  last  before  expressed,  and  the 
aforesaid  Great  Barn,  and  the  aforesaid  pond;  that 
is  to  say,  extending  in  length  from  the  aforesaid  pond 
unto  a  ditch  beyond  the  brick  wall  next  the  afore- 
said Fields. 

And  also  the  said  Gyles  Alleyn  and  Sara  his  wife 
do  by  these  presents  demise,  grant,  and  to  farm  lett 
unto  the  said  James  Burbage  all  the  right,  title,  and 
interest  which  the  said  Gyles  and  Sara  have  or  ought 
to  have  in  or  to  all  the  grounds  and  soil  lying  between 
the  aforesaid  Great  Barn  and  the  barn  being  at  the 
time  of  the  said  former  demise  in  the  occupation  of 
the  Earl  of  Rutland  or  of  his  assigns,  extending  in 
length  from  the  aforesaid  pond  and  from  the  afore- 
said stable  or  barn  then  in  the  occupation  of  the 
aforesaid  Earl  of  Rutland  or  of  his  assigns,  down  to 
the  aforesaid  brick  wall  next  the  aforesaid  Fields.1 

1  This  part  of  the  property  was  claimed  by  the  Earl  of  Rut- 
land, and  was  being  used  by  him.  For  a  long  time  it  was  the  sub- 
ject of  dispute.  Ultimately,  it  seems,  the  Earl  secured  the  title, 
as  he  had  always  had  the  use  of  the  property.  This  probably  ex- 
plains why  Burbage  did  not  attempt  to  erect  his  playhouse  there. 


THE   THEATRE  37 

And  also  the  said  Gyles  and  Sara  do  by  these 
presents  demise,  grant,  and  to  farm  lett  to  the  said 
James  all  the  said  void  ground  lying  and  being  be- 
twixt the  aforesaid  ditch  and  the  aforesaid  brick 
wall,  extending  in  length  from  the  aforesaid  [great 
stone]  wall  *  which  encloseth  part  of  the  aforesaid 
garden  being  at  the  time  of  the  making  of  the  said 
former  demise  or  late  before  that  in  the  occupation  of 
the  said  Gyles  Allen,  unto  the  aforesaid  barn  then  in 
the  occupation  of  the  aforesaid  Earl  or  of  his  assigns. 

The  lease  was  formally  signed  on  April  13,  1576, 
and  Burbage  entered  into  the  possession  of  his 
property.  Since  the  terms  of  the  lease  are  impor- 
tant for  an  understanding  of  the  subsequent  his- 
tory of  the  playhouse,  I  shall  set  these  forth  briefly: 

First,  the  lease  was  to  run  for  twenty-one  years 
from  April  13,  1576,  at  an  annual  rental  of  £14. 

Secondly,  Burbage  was  to  spend  before  the  ex- 
piration of  ten  years  the  sum  of  £200  in  rebuild- 
and  improving  the  decayed  tenements. 

Thirdly,  in  view  of  this  expenditure  of  £200, 
Burbage  was  to  have  at  the  end  of  the  ten  years 
the  right  to  renew  the  lease  at  the  same  rental  of 
£14  a  year  for  twenty-one  years,  thus  making  the 
lease  good  in  all  for  thirty-one  years : 

And  the  said  Gyles  Alleyn  and  Sara  his  wife  did 
thereby  covenant  with  the  said  James  Burbage  that 
they  should  and  would  at  any  time  within  the  ten 

1  The  document  by  error  reads  "brick  wall"  but  the  mistake 
is  obvious,  and  the  second  version  of  the  lease  does  not  repeat 
the  error.  This  clause  merely  means  that  the  ditch,  not  the  brick 
wall,  constituted  the  western  boundary  of  the  property. 


3  8     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

years  next  ensuing  at  or  upon  the  lawful  request  or 
demand  of  the  said  James  Burbage  make  or  cause  to 
be  made  to  the  said  James  Burbage  a  new  lease  or 
grant  like  to  the  same  presents  for  the  term  of  one 
and  twenty  years  more,  to  begin  from  the  date  of 
making  the  same  lease,  yielding  therefor  the  rent 
reserved  in  the  former  indenture.1 

Fourthly,  it  was  agreed  that  at  any  time  before 
the  expiration  of  the  lease,  Burbage  might  take 
down  and  carry  away  to  his  own  use  any  building 
that  in  the  mean  time  he  might  have  erected  on  the 
vacant  ground  for  the  purpose  of  a  playhouse : 

And  farther,  the  said  Gyles  Alleyn  and  Sara  his 
wife  did  covenant  and  grant  to  the  said  James  Bur- 
bage that  it  should  and  might  be  lawful  to  the  said 
James  Burbage  (in  consideration  of  the  imploying 
and  bestowing  the  foresaid  two  hundred  pounds  in 
forme  aforesaid)  at  any  time  or  times  before  the  end 
of  the  said  term  of  one  and  twenty  years,  to  have, 
take  down,  and  carry  away  to  his  own  proper  use  for 
ever  all  such  buildings  and  other  things  as  should  be 
builded,  erected,  or  set  up  in  or  upon  the  gardens 
and  void  grounds  by  the  said  James,  either  for  a 
theatre  or  playing  place,  or  for  any  other  lawful  use, 
without  any  stop,  claim,  let,  trouble,  or  interruption 
of  the  said  Gyles  Alleyn  and  Sara  his  wife.2 

Protected  by  these  specific  terms,  Burbage  pro- 
ceeded to  the  erection  of  his  playhouse.   He  must 

1  Quoted  from  Burbage  v.  Alleyn,  Court  of  Requests,  1600, 
Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  182.  I  have  stripped  the  passage  of  some  of 
its  legal  verbiage. 

2  Quoted  from  Burbage  v.  Alleyn,  Court  of  Requests,  1600, 
Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  182. 


THE   THEATRE  39 

have  had  faith  and  abundant  courage,  for  he  was 
a  poor  man,  quite  unequal  to  the  large  expendi- 
tures called  for  by  his  plans.  A  person  who  had 
known  him  for  many  years,  deposed  in  1592  that 
"James  Burbage  was  not  at  the  time  of  the  first 
beginning  of  the  building  of  the  premises  worth 
above  one  hundred  marks  l  in  all  his  substance, 
for  he  and  this  deponent  were  familiarly  acquainted 
long  before  that  time  and  ever  since."  2  We  are 
not  surprised  to  learn,  therefore,  that  he  was 
"constrained  to  borrow  diverse  sums  of  money," 
and  that  he  actually  pawned  the  lease  itself  to  a 
money-lender.3  Even  so,  without  assistance,  we 
are  told,  he  "should  never  be  able  to  build  it, 
for  it  would  cost  five  times  as  much  as  he  was 
worth." 

Fortunately  he  had  a  wealthy  brother-in-law, 
John  Brayne,4  a  London  grocer,  described  as 
"worth  five  hundred  pounds  at  the  least,  and  by 
common  fame  worth  a  thousand  marks." 6  In 
some  way  Brayne  became  interested  in  the  new 
venture.  Like  Burbage,  he  believed  that  large 
profits  would  flow  from  such  a  novel  undertaking; 
and  as  a  result  he  readily  agreed  to  share  the  ex- 
pense of  erecting  and  maintaining   the  building. 

1  That  is,  about  £80. 

2  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  134;  cf.  p.  153. 

•  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  151.  Cuthbert  Burbage  declared  in  1635: 
"The  Theatre  he  built  with  many  hundred  pounds  taken  up  at 
interest."    (Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  1,  317.) 

4  The  name  is  often  spelled  "Braynes." 

6  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  109. 


4o     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Years  later  members  of  the  Brayne  faction  as- 
serted that  James  Burbage  "induced"  his  brother- 
in-law  to  venture  upon  the  enterprise  by  unfairly 
representing  the  great  profits  to  ensue; !  but  the 
evidence,  I  think,  shows  that  Brayne  eagerly 
sought  the  partnership.  Burbage  himself  as- 
serted in  1588  that  Brayne  "practiced  to  obtain 
some  interest  therein,"  and  presumed  "that  he 
might  easily  compass  the  same  by  reason  that  he 
was  natural  brother";  and  that  he  voluntarily 
offered  to  "bear  and  pay  half  the  charges  of  the 
said  building  then  bestowed  and  thereafter  to  be 
bestowed  "  in  order  "  that  he  might  have  the  moiety 2 
of  the  above  named  Theatre."  3  As  a  further  in- 
ducement, so  the  Burbages  asserted,  he  prom- 
ised that  "for  that  he  had  no  children,"  the 
moiety  at  his  death  should  go  to  the  children  of 
James  Burbage,  "whose  advancement  he  then 
seemed  greatly  to  tender." 

Whatever  caused  Brayne  to  interest  himself  in 
the  venture,  he  quickly  became  fired  with  such 
hopes  of  great  gain  that  he  not  only  spent  upon 
the  building  all  the  money  he  could  gather  or  bor- 
row, but  sold  his  stock  of  groceries  for  £146,  dis- 
posed of  his  house  for  £100,  even  pawned  his 
clothes,  and  put  his  all  into  the  new  structure. 
The  spirit  in  which  he  worked  to  make  the  ven- 
ture a  success,  and  the  personal  sacrifices  that  he 

1  See  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  139  seq. 

2  That  is,  half-interest.  3  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  40. 


THE   THEATRE  41 

and  his  wife  made,  fully  deserve  the  quotation 
here  of  two  legal  depositions  bearing  on  the  sub- 
ject: 

This  deponent,  being  servant,  in  Bucklersbury, 
aforesaid,  to  one  Robert  Kenningham,  grocer,  in 
which  street  the  said  John  Brayne  dwelled  also,  and 
of  the  same  trade,  he,  the  said  Brayne,  at  the  time  he 
joined  with  the  said  James  Burbage  in  the  aforesaid 
lease,  was  reputed  among  his  neighbors  to  be  worth 
one  thousand  pounds  at  the  least,  and  that  after  he 
had  joined  with  the  said  Burbage  in  the  matter  of 
the  building  of  the  said  Theatre,  he  began  to  slack 
his  own  trade,  and  gave  himself  to  the  building  there- 
of, and  the  chief  care  thereof  he  took  upon  him,  and 
hired  workmen  of  all  sorts  for  that  purpose,  bought 
timber  and  all  other  things  belonging  thereunto,  and 
paid  all.  So  as,  in  this  deponent's  conscience,  he  be- 
stowed thereupon  for  his  owne  part  the  sum  of  one 
thousand  marks  at  the  least,  in  so  much  as  his  affec- 
tion was  given  so  greatly  to  the  finishing  thereof,  in 
hope  of  great  wealth  and  profit  during  their  lease, 
that  at  the  last  he  was  driven  to  sell  to  this  depo- 
nent's father  his  lease  of  the  house  wherein  he  dwelled 
for  £100,  and  to  this  deponent  all  such  wares  as  he 
had  left  and  all  that  belonged  thereunto  remaining  in 
the  same,  for  the  sum  of  £146  and  odd  money, 
whereof  this  deponent  did  pay  for  him  to  one  Kym- 
bre,  an  ironmonger  in  London,  for  iron  work  which 
the  said  Brayne  bestowed  upon  the  said  Theatre, 
the  sum  of  £40.  And  afterwards  the  said  Brayne 
took  the  matter  of  the  said  building  so  upon  him  as 
he  was  driven  to  borrow  money  to  supply  the  same, 
saying  to  this  deponent  that  his  brother  Burbage 
was  not  able  to  help  the  same,  and  that  he  found 


42     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

not  towards    it    above  the  value  of  fifty  pounds, 
some  part  in  mony  and  the  rest  in  stufF.1 

In  reading  the  next  deposition,  one  should  bear 
in  mind  the  fact  that  the  deponent,  Robert  Myles, 
was  closely  identified  with  the  Brayne  faction, 
and  was,  therefore,  a  bitter  enemy  to  the  Bur- 
bages.  Yet  his  testimony,  though  prejudiced, 
gives  us  a  vivid  picture  of  Brayne's  activity  in  the 
building  of  the  Theatre: 

So  the  said  John  Brayne  made  a  great  sum  of 
money  of  purpose  and  intent  to  go  to  the  building 
of  the  said  playhouse,  and  thereupon  did  provide 
timber  and  other  stuff  needful  for  the  building 
thereof,  and  hired  carpenters  and  plasterers  for  the 
same  purpose,  and  paid  the  workmen  continually. 
So  as  he  for  his  part  laid  out  of  his  own  purse  and 
what  upon  credit  about  the  same  to  the  sum  of  £600 
or  £700  at  the  least.  And  in  the  same  time,  seeing 
the  said  James  Burbage  nothing  able  either  of  him- 
self or  by  his  credit  to  contribute  any  like  sum  to- 
wards the  building  thereof,  being  then  to  be  finished 
or  else  to  be  lost  that  had  been  bestowed  upon  it 
already,  the  said  Brayne  was  driven  to  sell  his  house 
he  dwelled  in  in  Bucklersbury,  and  all  his  stock  that 
was  left,  and  give  up  his  trade,  yea  in  the  end  to 
pawn  and  sell  both  his  own  garments  and  his  wife's, 
and  to  run  in  debt  to  many  for  money,  to  finish  the 
said  playhouse,  and  so  to  employ  himself  only  upon 
that  matter,  and  all  whatsoever  he  could  make,  to 
his  utter  undoing,  for  he  saieth  that  in  the  latter  end 
of  the  finishing  thereof,  the  said  Brayne  and  his 
wife,  the  now  complainants,  were  driven  to  labor  in 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  136. 


THE   THEATRE  43 

the  said  work  for  saving  of  some  of  the  charge  in 
place  of  two  laborers,  whereas  the  said  James  Bur- 
bage  went  about  his  own  business,  and  at  sometimes 
when  he  did  take  upon  him  to  do  some  thing  in  the 
said  work,  he  would  be  and  was  allowed  a  workman's 
hire  as  other  the  workman  there  had.1 

The  last  fling  at  Burbage  is  quite  gratuitous;  yet 
it  is  probably  true  that  the  main  costs  of  erecting 
the  playhouse  fell  upon  the  shoulders  of  Brayne. 
The  evidence  is  contradictory;  some  persons  as- 
sert that  Burbage  paid  half  the  cost  of  the  build- 
ing,2 others  that  Brayne  paid  nearly  all,3  and  still 
others  content  themselves  with  saying  that  Brayne 
paid  considerably  more  than  half.  The  last  state- 
ment may  be  accepted  as  true.  The  assertion  of 
Gyles  Alleyn  in  1601,  that  the  Theatre  was 
"erected  at  the  costs  and  charges  of  one  Brayne 
and  not  of  the  said  James  Burbage,  to  the  value 
of  one  thousand  marks,"  4  is  doubtless  incorrect; 
more  correct  is  the  assertion  of  Robert  Myles, 
executor  of  the  Widow  Brayne's  will,  in  1597: 
"The  said  John  Brayne  did  join  with  the  said 
James  [Burbage]  in  the  building  aforesaid,  and  did 
expend  thereupon  greater  sums  than  the  said 
James,  that  is  to  say,  at  least  five  or  six  hundred 

1  Brayne  v.  Burbage,  1592.  Printed  in  full  by  Wallace,  op  cit. 
p.  141. 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  213,  217,  263,  265,  et  al. 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  137,  141,  142,  148,  153. 

4  Alleyn  v.  Burbage,  Star  Chamber  Proceedings,  1601-02; 
printed  by  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  277. 


44     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

pounds."  l  Since  there  is  evidence  that  the  play- 
house ultimately  cost  about  £700, 2  we  might 
hazard  the  guess  that  of  this  sum  Brayne  fur- 
nished about  £5CO,3  and  Burbage  about  £200.  To 
equalize  the  expenditure  it  was  later  agreed  that 
"the  said  Brayne  should  take  and  receive  all  the 
rents  and  profits  of  the  said  Theatre  to  his  own  use 
until  he  should  be  answered  such  sums  of  money 
which  he  had  laid  out  for  and  upon  the  same 
Theatre  more  than  the  said  Burbage  had  done."4 
But  if  Burbage  at  the  outset  was  "nothing  able 
to  contribute  any"  great  sum  of  ready  money 
towards  the  building  of  the  first  playhouse,  he 
did  contribute  other  things  equally  if  not  more 
important.  In  the  first  place,  he  conceived  the 
idea,  and  he  carried  it  as  far  towards  realization 
as  his  means  allowed.  In  the  second  place,  he 
planned  the  building  —  its  stage  as  well  as  its  audi- 
torium —  to  meet  the  special  demands  of  the 
actors  and  the  comfort  of  the  audience.  This 
called  for  bold  originality  and  for  ingenuity  of  a 
high  order,  for,  it  must  be  remembered,  he  had 
no  model  to  study  —  he  was  designing  the  first 
structure  of  its  kind  in  England.5    For  this  task 

1  Myles  v.  Burbage  and  Alleyn,  1597;  printed  by  Wallace,  op. 
cit.,  p.  159;  cf.  pp.  263,  106,  152. 

2  See  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  277. 

3  This  agrees  with  the  claim  of  Brayne's  widow. 

4  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  120. 

5  Mr.  E.  K.  Chambers  {The  Mediaeval  Stage,  1,  383,  note  2;  II, 
190,  note  4)  calls  attention  to  a  "theatre"  belonging  to  the  city 
of  Essex  as  early  as  1548.   Possibly  the  Latin  document  he  cites 


THE   THEATRE  45 

he  was  well  prepared.  In  the  first  place,  he  was 
an  actor  of  experience;  in  the  second  place,  he 
was  the  manager  of  one  of  the  most  important 
troupes  in  England;  and,  in  the  third  place,  he 
was  by  training  and  early  practice  a  carpenter  and 
builder.  In  other  words,  he  had  exact  knowledge 
of  what  was  needed,  and  the  practical  skill  to  meet 
those  needs. 

The  building  that  he  designed  and  erected  he 
named  —  as  by  virtue  of  priority  he  had  a  right 
to  do  — "The  Theatre." 

Of  the  Theatre,  unfortunately,  we  have  no 
pictorial  representation,  and  no  formal  descrip- 
tion, so  that  our  knowledge  of  its  size,  shape,  and 
general  arrangement  must  be  derived  from  scat- 
tered and  miscellaneous  sources.  That  the  build- 
ing was  large  we  may  feel  sure;  the  cost  of  its 
erection  indicates  as  much.    The  Fortune,  one  of 

referred  to  an  amphitheatre  of  some  sort  near  the  city  which  was 
used  for  dramatic  performances;  at  any  rate  "in  theatre "  does 
not  necessarily  imply  the  existence  of  a  playhouse  (cf.,  for  exam- 
ple, op.  cit.,  1,  81-82).  There  is  also  a  reference  (quoted  by  Cham- 
bers, op.  cit.,  11,  191,  note  I,  from  Norfolk  Archceology,  xi,  336) 
to  a  "game-house"  built  by  the  corporation  of  Yarmouth  in 
1538  for  dramatic  performances.  What  kind  of  house  this  was  we 
do  not  know,  but  the  corporation  leased  it  for  other  purposes, 
with  the  proviso  that  it  should  be  available  "at  all  such  times 
as  any  interludes  or  plays  should  be  ministered  or  played."  Howes, 
in  his  continuation  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1),  p.  1004,  declares 
that  before  Burbage's  time  he  "neither  knew,  heard,  nor  read 
of  any  such  theatres,  set  stages,  or  playhouses  as  have  been  pur- 
posely built,  within  man's  memory";  and  Cuthbert  Burbage 
confidently  asserted  that  his  father  "was  the  first  builder  of  play- 
houses" —  an  assertion  which,  I  think,  cannot  well  be  denied. 


46     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

the  largest  and  handsomest  of  the  later  play- 
houses, cost  only  £520,  and  the  Hope,  also  very- 
large,  cost  £360.  The  Theatre,  therefore,  built  at 
a  cost  of  £700,  could  not  have  been  small.  It  is 
commonly  referred  to,  even  so  late  as  1601,  as 
"the  great  house  called  the  Theatre,"  and  the 
author  of  Skialetheia  (1598)  applied  to  it  the  signif- 
icant adjective  "vast."  Burbage,  no  doubt,  had 
learned  from  his  experience  as  manager  of  a  troupe 
the  pecuniary  advantage  of  having  an  auditorium 
large  enough  to  receive  all  who  might  come. 
Exactly  how  many  people  his  building  could  ac- 
commodate we  cannot  say.  The  Reverend  John 
Stockwood,  in  1578,  exclaims  bitterly:  "Will  not 
a  filthy  play,  with  the  blast  of  a  trumpet,  sooner 
call  thither  a  thousand  than  an  hour's  tolling  of 
the  bell  bring  to  the  sermon  a  hundred?"  1  And 
Fleetwood,  the  City  Recorder,  in  describing  a 
quarrel  which  took  place  in  1584  "at  Theatre 
door,"  states  that  "near  a  thousand  people" 
quickly  assembled  when  the  quarrel  began. 

In  shape  the  building  was  probably  polygonal, 
or  circular.  I  see  no  good  reason  for  supposing 
that  it  was  square;  Johannes  de  Witt  referred  to 
it  as  an  "amphitheatre,"  and  the  Curtain,  erected 
the  following  year  in  imitation,  was  probably  po- 
lygonal.2   It  was  built  of  timber,  and  its  exterior, 

1  The  rest  of  his  speech  indicates  that  he  had  the  Theatre  in 
mind.   The  passage,  of  course,  is  rhetorical. 

2  One  cannot  be  absolutely  sure,  yet  the  whole  history  of  early 
playhouses  indicates  that  the  Theatre  was  polygonal  (or  circu- 


THE   THEATRE  47 

no  doubt,  was  —  as  in  the  case  of  subsequent  play- 
houses —  of  lime  and  plaster.  The  interior  con- 
sisted of  three  galleries  surrounding  an  open  space 
called  the  "yard."  The  German  traveler,  Samuel 
Kiechel,  who  visited  London  in  the  autumn  of 
1585,  described  the  playhouses  —  i.e.,  the  Theatre 
and  the  Curtain — as  "singular  [sonderbare]  houses, 
which  are  so  constructed  that  they  have  about 
three  galleries,  one  above  the  other."  l  And  Ste- 
phen Gosson,  in  Plays  Confuted  (c.  1581)  writes: 
"In  the  playhouses  at  London,  it  is  the  fashion 
for  youths  to  go  first  into  the  yard,  and  to  carry 
their  eye  through  every  gallery;  then,  like  unto 
ravens,  where  they  spy  the  carrion,  thither  they 
fly,  and  press  as  near  to  the  fairest  as  they  can." 
The  "yard"  was  unroofed,  and  all  persons  there 
had  to  stand  during  the  entire  performance.  The 
galleries,  however,  were  protected  by  a  roof,  were 
divided  into  "rooms,"  and  were  provided  for  the 
most  part  with  seats.  Gyles  Alleyn  inserted  in 
the  lease  he  granted  to  Burbage  the  following  con- 
dition : 

And  further,  that  it  shall  or  may  [be]  lawful  foi 
the  said  Gyles  and  for  his  wife  and  family,  upon  law- 
ful request  therefor  made  to  the  said  James  Bur- 
bage, his  executors  or  assigns,  to  enter  or  come  into 

lar)  in  shape.  The  only  reason  for  suspecting  that  it  might  have 
been  square,  doubtfully  presented  by  T.  S.  Graves  in  "The 
Shape  of  the  First  London  Theatre"  (The  South  Atlantic  Quar- 
terly, July,  1914),  seems  to  me  to  deserve  no  serious  consideration. 
1  Quoted  by  W.  B.  Rye,  England  as  Seen  by  Foreigners,  p.  88. 


4«     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

the  premises,  and  there  in  some  one  of  the  upper 
rooms  to  have  such  convenient  place  to  sit  or  stand 
to  see  such  plays  as  shall  be  there  played,  freely 
without  anything  therefor  paying.1 

The  stage  was  a  platform,  projecting  into  the 
yard,  with  a  tiring-house  at  the  rear,  and  a  bal- 
cony overhead.  The  details  of  the  stage,  no 
doubt,  were  subject  to  alteration  as  experience 
suggested,  for  its  materials  were  of  wood,  and  his- 
trionic and  dramatic  art  were  both  undergoing 
rapid  development.2  The  furnishings  and  decora- 
tions, as  in  the  case  of  modern  playhouses,  seem 
to  have  been  ornate.  Thus  T[homas]  W[hite],  in 
A  Sermon  Preached  at  Pawles  Crosse,  on  Sunday 
the  Thirde  of  November,  1577,  exclaims:  "Behold 
the  sumptuous  Theatre  houses,  a  continual  monu- 
ment of  London's  prodigality";  John  Stockwood, 
in  A  Sermon  Preached  at  Paules  Cross,  1578,  re- 
fers to  it  as  "the  gorgeous  playing  place  erected 
in  the  Fields";  and  Gabriel  Harvey  could  think 
of  no  more  appropriate  epithet  for  it  than  "paint- 
ed"—  "painted  theatres,"  "painted  stage." 

The  building  was  doubtless  used  for  dramatic 
performances  in  the  autumn  of  1576,  although 
it  was  not  completed  until  later;  John  Grigges, 
one  of  the  carpenters,  deposed  that  Burbage  and 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  177. 

2  There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  suppose,  with  Ordish,  Mant- 
zius,  Lawrence,  and  others,  that  the  stage  of  the  Theatre  was 
removable;  for  although  the  building  was  frequently  used  by 
fencers,  tumblers,  etc.,  it  was  never,  so  far  as  I  can  discover,  used 
for  animal-baiting. 


THE   THEATRE  49 

Brayne  "finished  the  same  with  the  help  of  the 
profits  that  grew  by  plays  used  there  before  it  was 
fully  finished."  !  Access  to  the  playhouse  was  had 
chiefly  by  way  of  Finsbury  Field  and  a  passage 
made  by  Burbage  through  the  brick  wall  men- 
tioned in  the  lease.2 

The  terms  under  which  the  owners  let  it  to  the 
actors  were  simple:  the  actors  retained  as  their 
share  the  pennies  paid  at  the  outer  doors  for  gen- 
eral admission,  and  the  proprietors  received  as 
their  share  the  money  paid  for  seats  or  standings 
in  the  galleries.3  Cuthbert  Burbage  states  in  1635 : 
"The  players  that  lived  in  those  first  times  had 
only  the  profits  arising  from  the  doors,  but  now 
the  players  receive  all  the  comings  in  at  the  doors 
to  themselves,  and  half  the  galleries."  4 

Before  the  expiration  of  two  years,  or  in  the 
early  summer  of  1578,  Burbage  and  Brayne  began 
to  quarrel  about  the  division  of  the  money  which 
fell  to  their  share.  Brayne  apparently  thought 
that  he  should  at  once  be  indemnified  for  all  the 
money  he  had  expended  on  the  playhouse  in  ex- 
cess of  Burbage;  and  he  accused  Burbage  of  "in- 
direct dealing"  —  there  were  even  whispers  of  "a 
secret  key"  to  the  "common  box"  in  which  the 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  135. 

*  For  depositions  to  this  effect  see  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines, 
I,  350  ff. 

*  I  suspect  that  the  same  terms  were  made  with  the  actors  by 
the  proprietors  of  the  inn-playhouses. 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  1,  317. 


5o     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

money  was  kept.1  Finally  they  agreed  to  "sub- 
mit themselves  to  the  order  and  arbitrament  of 
certain  persons  for  the  pacification  thereof,"  and 
together  they  went  to  the  shop  of  a  notary  public 
to  sign  a  bond  agreeing  to  abide  by  the  decision 
of  the  arbitrators.  There  they  "fell  a  reasoning 
together,"  in  the  course  of  which  Brayne  asserted 
that  he  had  disbursed  in  the  Theatre  "three  times 
at  the  least  as  much  more  as  the  sum  then  dis- 
bursed by  the  said  James  Burbage."  In  the  end 
Brayne  unwisely  hinted  at  "ill  dealing"  on  the 
part  of  Burbage,  whereupon  "Burbage  did  there 
strike  him  with  his  fist,  and  so  they  went  together 
by  the  ears,  in  so  much,"  says  the  notary,  "that 
this  deponent  could  hardly  part  them."  After 
they  were  parted,  they  signed  a  bond  of  £200  to 
abide  by  the  decision  of  the  arbitrators.  The 
arbitrators,  John  Hill  and  Richard  Tumor,  "men 
of  great  honesty  and  credit,"  held  their  sessions 
"in  the  Temple  church,"  whither  they  summoned 
witnesses.  Finally,  on  July  12,  1578,  after  "hav- 
ing thoroughly  heard"  both  sides,  they  awarded 
that  the  profits  from  the  Theatre  should  be  used 
first  to  pay  the  debts  upon  the  building,  then  to 
pay  Brayne  the  money  he  had  expended  in  excess 
of  Burbage,  and  thereafter  to  be  shared  "in  divi- 
dent  equally  between  them."  2  These  conditions, 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  142,  148. 

2  For  the  history  of  this  quarrel,  and  for  other  details  of  the 
award  see  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  102,  119,  138,  142,  143,  148, 
152- 


THE   THEATRE  5i 

however,  were  not  observed,  and  the  failure  to 
observe  them  led  to  much  subsequent  discord. 

The  arbitrators  also  decided  that  "if  occasion 
should  move  them  [Burbage  and  Brayne]  to  bor- 
row any  sum  of  money  for  the  payment  of  their 
debts  owing  for  any  necessary  use  and  thing  con- 
cerning the  said  Theatre,  that  then  the  said  James 
Burbage  and  the  said  John  Brayne  should  join  in 
pawning  or  mortgageing  of  their  estate  and  interest 
of  and  in  the  same."  l  An  occasion  for  borrowing 
money  soon  arose.  So  on  September  26,  1579,  the 
two  partners  mortgaged  the  Theatre  to  John  Hide 
for  the  sum  of  £125  Ss.  lid.  At  the  end  of  a  year, 
by  non-payment,  they  forfeited  the  mortgage,  and 
the  legal  title  to  the  property  passed  to  Hide.  It 
seems,  however,  that  because  of  some  special 
clause  in  the  mortgage  Hide  was  unable  to  expel 
Burbage  and  Brayne,  or  to  dispose  of  the  property 
to  others.  Hence  he  took  no  steps  to  seize  the 
Theatre;  but  he  constantly  annoyed  the  occu- 
pants by  arrest  and  otherwise.  This  unfortunate 
transference  of  the  title  to  Hide  was  the  cause  of 
serious  quarreling  between  the  Burbages  and  the 
Braynes,  and  finally  led  to  much  litigation. 

In  1582  a  more  immediate  disaster  threatened 
the  owners  of  the  Theatre.  One  Edmund  Peck- 
ham  laid  claim  to  the  land  on  which  the  playhouse 
had  been  built,  and  brought  suit  against  Alleyn 
for  recovery.    More  than  that,  Peckham  tried  to 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  103. 


52     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

take  actual  possession  of  the  playhouse,  so  that 
Burbage  "was  fain  to  find  men  at  his  own  charge 
to  keep  the  possession  thereof  from  the  said  Peck- 
ham  and  his  servants,"  and  was  even  "once  in  dan- 
ger of  his  own  life  by  keeping  possession  thereof." 
As  a  result  of  this  state  of  affairs,  Burbage  "was 
much  disturbed  and  troubled  in  his  possession  of 
the  Theatre,  and  could  not  quietly  and  peace- 
ably enjoy  the  same.  And  therefore  the  players 
forsook  the  said  Theatre,  to  his  great  loss."  l  In 
order  to  reimburse  himself  in  some  measure  for 
this  loss  Burbage  retained  £30  of  the  rental  due  to 
Alleyn.  The  act  led  to  a  bitter  quarrel  with  Alleyn, 
and  figured  conspicuously  in  the  subsequent  liti- 
gation that  came  near  overwhelming  the  Theatre. 
In  1585  Burbage,  having  spent  the  stipulated 
£200  in  repairing  and  rebuilding  the  tenements  on 
the  premises,  sought  to  renew  the  lease,  accord- 
ing to  the  original  agreement,  for  the  extended 
period  of  twenty-one  years.  On  November  20, 
1585,  he  engaged  three  skilled  workmen  to  view 
the  buildings  and  estimate  the  sum  he  had  dis- 
bursed in  improvements.  They  signed  a  formal 
statement  to  the  effect  that  in  their  opinion  at  least 
£220  had  been  thus  expended  on  the  premises. 
Burbage  then  "tendered  unto  the  said  Alleyn  a 
new  lease  devised  by  his  counsel,  ready  written 
and  engrossed,  with  labels  and  wax  thereunto 
affixed,  agreeable  to  the  covenant."  But  Alleyn 
1  See  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  201,  239,  240,  242. 


THE   THEATRE  53 

refused  to  sign  the  document.  He  maintained  that 
the  new  lease  was  not  a  verbatim  copy  of  the  old 
lease,  that  £200  had  not  been  expended  on  the 
buildings,  and  that  Burbage  was  a  bad  tenant  and 
owed  him  rent.  In  reality,  Alleyn  wanted  to  ex- 
tort a  larger  rental  than  £14  for  the  property, 
which  had  greatly  increased  in  value. 

On  July  18,  1586,  Burbage  engaged  six  men, 
all  expert  laborers,  to  view  the  buildings  again  and 
estimate  the  cost  of  the  improvements.  They  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  in  writing  that  Burbage  had 
expended  at  least  £240  in  developing  the  prop- 
erty.1 Still  Alleyn  refused  to  sign  an  extension  of 
the  lease.  His  conduct  must  have  been  very  ex- 
asperating to  the  owner  of  the  Theatre.  Cuthbert 
Burbage  tells  us  that  his  father  "did  often  in  gentle 
manner  solicit  and  require  the  said  Gyles  Alleyn 
for  making  a  new  lease  of  the  said  premises  ac- 
cording to  the  purporte  and  effect  of  the  said 
covenant."  But  invariably  Alleyn  found  some 
excuse  for  delay. 

The  death  of  Brayne,  in  August,  1586,  led  John 
Hide,  who  by  reason  of  the  defaulted  mortgage 
was  legally  the  owner  of  the  Theatre,  to  redouble 
his  efforts  to  collect  his  debt.  He  "gave  it  out  in 
speech  that  he  had  set  over  and  assigned  the  said 
lease  and  bonds  to  one  George  Clough,  his  .  .  . 
father-in-law  (but  in  truth  he  did  not  so),"  and 
"the  said  Clough,  his  father-in-law,  did  go  about 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  229,  234,  228,  233. 


54     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

to  put  the  said  defendant  [Burbage]  out  of  the 
Theatre,  or  at  least  did  threaten  to  put  him  out." 
As  we  have  seen,  there  was  a  clause  in  the  mortgage 
which  prevented  Hide  from  ejecting  Burbage;1 
yet  Clough  was  able  to  make  so  much  trouble, 
"divers  and  sundry  times"  visiting  the  Theatre, 
that  at  last  Burbage  undertook  to  settle  the  debt 
out  of  the  profits  of  the  playhouse.  As  Robert 
Myles  deposed  in  1592,  Burbage  allowed  the 
widow  of  Brayne  for  "a  certain  time  to  take  and 
receive  the  one-half  of  the  profits  of  the  galleries 
of  the  said  Theatre  .  .  .  then  on  a  sudden  he  would 
not  suffer  her  to  receive  any  more  of  the  profits 
there,  saying  that  he  must  take  and  receive  all  till 
he  had  paid  the  debts.  And  then  she  was  con- 
strained, as  his  servant,  to  gather  the  money  and 
to  deliver  it  unto  him."  2 

For  some  reason,  however,  the  debt  was  not 
settled,  and  Hide  continued  his  futile  demands. 
Several  times  Burbage  offered  to  pay  the  sum  in 
full  if  the  title  of  the  Theatre  were  made  over  to 
his  son  Cuthbert  Burbage;  and  Brayne's  widow 
made  similar  offers  in  an  endeavor  to  gain  the  en- 
tire property  for  herself.  But  Hide,  who  seems  to 
have  been  an  honest  man,  always  declared  that 
since  Burbage  and  Brayne  "did  jointly  mortgage 
it  unto  him"  he  was  honor-bound  to  assign  the 
property  back  to  Burbage  and  the  widow  of 
Brayne  jointly.   So  matters  stood  for  a  while. 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  55.  2  Ibid.,  p.  105. 


THE   THEATRE  55 

At  last,  however,  in  1589,  Hide  declared  that 
"since  he  had  forborne  his  money  so  long,  he 
could  do  it  no  more,  so  as  they  that  came  first 
should  have  it  of  him."  Thereupon  Cuthbert  Bur- 
bage  came  bringing  not  only  the  money  in  hand, 
but  also  a  letter  from  his  master  and  patron, 
Walter  Cape,  gentleman  usher  to  the  Lord  High 
Treasurer,  requesting  Hide  to  make  over  the  Thea- 
tre to  Cuthbert,  and  promising  in  return  to  assist 
Hide  with  the  Lord  Treasurer  when  occasion  arose. 
Under  this  pressure,  Hide  accepted  full  payment 
of  his  mortgage,  and  made  over  the  title  of  the 
property  to  Cuthbert  Burbage.  Thus  Brayne's 
widow  was  legally  excluded  from  any  share  in  the 
ownership  of  the  Theatre.  Myles  deposed,  in  1592, 
that  henceforth  Burbage  "would  not  suffer  her  to 
meddle  in  the  premises,  but  thrust  her  out  of  all." 

This  led  at  once  to  a  suit,  in  which  Robert 
Myles  acted  for  the  widow.  He  received  an  order 
from  the  Court  of  Chancery  in  her  favor,  and 
armed  with  this,  and  accompanied  by  two  other 
persons,  he  came  on  November  16,  1590,  to  Bur- 
bage's  "dwelling  house  near  the  Theatre,"  called 
to  the  door  Cuthbert  Burbage,  and  in  "rude  and 
exclamable  sort"  demanded  "the  moiety  of  the 
said  Theatre."  James  Burbage  "being  within  the 
house,  hearing  a  noise  at  the  door,  went  to  the 
door,  and  there  found  his  son,  the  said  Cuthbert, 
and  the  said  Myles  speaking  loud  together." 
Words  were  bandied,  until  finally  Burbage,  "dared 


56     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

by  the  same  Myles  with  great  threats  and  words 
that  he  would  do  this  and  could  do  that,"  lost  his 
temper,  and  threatened  to  beat  Myles  off  the 
ground.1 

Next  the  widow,  attended  by  Robert  Myles 
and  others,  visited  the  home  of  the  Burbages  "to 
require  them  to  perform  the  said  award"  of  the 
court.  They  were  met  by  James  Burbage's  wife, 
who  "charged  them  to  go  out  of  her  grounds,  or 
else  she  would  make  her  son  break  their  knaves' 
heads."  Aroused  by  this  noise,  "James  Burbage, 
her  husband,  looking  out  a  window  upon  them, 
called  the  complainant  [Widow  Brayne]  murder- 
ing whore,  and  .  .  .  the  others  villaines,  rascals, 
and  knaves."  And  when  Mistress  Brayne  spoke 
of  the  order  of  the  court,  "he  cryed  unto  her, 
'Go,  go.  A  cart,  a  cart  for  you!  I  will  obey  no 
such  order,  nor  I  care  not  for  any  such  orders,  and 
therefore  it  were  best  for  you  and  your  compan- 
ions to  be  packing  betimes,  for  if  my  son  [Cuth- 
bert]  come  he  will  thump  you  hence!'"  Just  then 
Cuthbert  did  "come  home,  and  in  very  hot  sort 
bid  them  get  thence,  or  else  he  would  set  them 
forwards,  saying  'I  care  for  no  such  order.  The 
Chancery  shall  not  give  away  what  I  have  paid 
for."'  And  so,  after  "great  and  horrible  oathes" 
by  James  Burbage  and  his  son,  the  widow  and  her 
attendants  "went  their  ways."  2 

Receiving  thus  no  satisfaction  from  these  visits 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  57,  60,  62.  2  Ibid.,  p.  121. 


THE   THEATRE  57 

to  the  home  of  James  Burbage,  the  widow  and 
Robert  Myles  came  several  times  to  the  Theatre, 
bearing  the  order  of  the  court  in  their  hands;  but 
each  time  they  were  railed  upon  and  driven  out. 
Finally,  the  widow,  with  her  ever-faithful  adjutant 
Robert  Myles,  his  son  Ralph,  and  his  business 
partner,  Nicholas  Bishop,  went  "to  the  Theatre 
upon  a  play-day  to  stand  at  the  door  that  goeth 
up  to  the  galleries  of  the  said  Theatre  to  take  and 
receive  for  the  use  of  the  said  Margaret  half  of  the 
money  that  should  be  given  to  come  up  into  the 
said  gallery."  In  the  Theatre  they  were  met  by 
Richard  Burbage,  then  about  nineteen  years  old, 
and  his  mother,  who  "fell  upon  the  said  Robert 
Myles  and  beat  him  with  a  broom  staff",  calling  him 
murdering  knave."  When  Myles's  partner,  Bishop, 
ventured  to  protest  at  this  contemptuous  treat- 
ment of  the  order  of  the  court,  "the  said  Richard 
Burbage,"  so  Bishop  deposed,  "scornfully  and 
disdainfully  playing  with  this  deponent's  nose, 
said  that  if  he  dealt  in  the  matter,  he  would  beat 
him  also,  and  did  challenge  the  field  of  him  at  that 
time."  One  of  the  actors  then  coming  in,  John 
Alleyn  —  brother  of  the  immortal  Edward  Alleyn 
—  "found  the  foresaid  Richard  Burbage,  the 
youngest  son  of  the  said  James  Burbage,  there 
with  a  broom  staff  in  his  hand;  of  whom  when  this 
deponent  Alleyn  asked  what  stir  was  there,  he  an- 
swered in  laughing  phrase  how  they  came  for  a 
moiety,  'But,'  quod  he  (holding  up  the  said  broom 


58     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

staff)  'I  have,  I  think,  delivered  him  a  moiety 
with  this,  and  sent  them  packing.'  "  Alleyn  there- 
upon warned  the  Burbages  that  Myles  could  bring 
an  action  of  assault  and  battery  against  them. 
"  'Tush,'  quod  the  father,  'no,  I  warrant  you; 
but  where  my  son  hath  now  beat  him  hence,  my 
sons,  if  they  will  be  ruled  by  me,  shall  at  their  next 
coming  provide  charged  pistols,  with  powder  and 
hempseed,  to  shoot  them  in  the  legs.'  "  ! 

But  if  the  Burbages  could  laugh  at  the  efforts  of 
Myles  and  the  widow  to  secure  a  moiety  of  the 
Theatre  from  Cuthbert,  they  were  seriously 
troubled  by  the  continued  refusal  of  Gyles  Alleyn 
to  renew  the  lease.  James  Burbage  many  times 
urged  his  landlord  to  fulfill  the  original  agreement, 
but  in  vain.  At  last,  Alleyn,  "according  to  his  own 
will  and  discretion,  did  cause  a  draft  of  a  lease  to 
be  drawn,  wherein  were  inserted  many  unrea- 
sonable covenants."  The  new  conditions  imposed 
by  Alleyn  were:  (i)  that  Burbage  should  pay  a 
rental  of  £24  instead  of  £14  a  year;  (2)  that  he 
should  use  the  Theatre  as  a  place  for  acting  for 
only  five  years  after  the  expiration  of  the  original 
twenty-one-year  lease,  and  should  then  convert 
the  building  to  other  uses;  (3)  that  he  should  ulti- 
mately leave  the  building  in  the  possession  of 
Alleyn.2  The  first  and  third  conditions,  though 
unjust,  Burbage  was  willing  to  accept,  but  the 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  63,  97,  100,  101,  114. 

2  See  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  195,  212,  216,  250,  258,  et  al. 


THE   THEATRE  59 

second  condition  —  that  he  should  cease  to  use 
the  Theatre  for  plays  —  he  "utterly  refused"  to 
consider. 

Finally,  perceiving  that  it  was  useless  to  deal 
further  with  Alleyn,  he  made  plans  to  secure  a  new 
playhouse  in  the  district  of  Blackfriars,  a  district 
which,  although  within  the  city  walls,  was  not 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  city  authorities.  He 
purchased  there  the  old  Blackfriars  refectory  for 
£600,  and  then  at  great  expense  made  the  refec- 
tory into  a  playhouse.  But  certain  influential 
noblemen  and  others  living  near  by  protested 
against  this,  and  the  Privy  Council  ordered  that 
the  building  should  not  be  used  as  a  public  play- 
house. All  this  belongs  mainly  to  the  history  of 
the  Second  Blackfriars  Playhouse,  and  for  further 
details  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  chapter  deal- 
ing with  that  theatre. 

Shortly  after  the  order  of  the  Privy  Council 
cited  above,  Burbage  died,  just  two  months  before 
the  expiration  of  his  lease  from  Alleyn;  and  the 
Theatre  with  all  its  troubles  passed  to  his  son 
Cuthbert.  By  every  means  in  his  power  Cuthbert 
sought  to  induce  Alleyn  to  renew  the  lease:  "Your 
said  subject  was  thereof  possessed,  and  being  so 
possessed,  your  said  servant  did  often  require  the 
said  Alleyn  and  Sara  his  wife  to  make  unto  him 
the  said  new  lease  of  the  premises,  according  to 
the  agreement  of  the  said  indenture."  Cuthbert's 
importunity  in  the  matter  is  clearly  set  forth  in 


60    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

a  deposition  by  Henry  Johnson,  one  of  Alleyn's 
tenants.  It  was  Alleyn's  custom  to  come  to  Lon- 
don at  each  of  the  four  pay  terms  of  the  year,  and 
stop  at  the  George  Inn  in  Shoreditch  to  receive 
his  rents;  and  on  such  occasions  Johnson  often 
observed  Cuthbert's  entreaties  with  Alleyn.  In 
his  deposition  he  says  that  he  "knoweth  that  the 
said  complainant  [Cuthbert  Burbage]  hath  many 
times  labored  and  entreated  the  defendant  [Gyles 
Alleyn]  to  make  him  a  new  lease  of  the  premises  in 
question,  for  this  deponent  sayeth  that  many 
times  when  the  defendant  hath  come  up  to  London 
to  receive  his  rents,  he,  this  deponent,  hath  been 
with  him  paying  him  certain  rent;  and  then  he 
hath  seen  the  plaintiff  with  his  landlord,  paying  his 
rent  likewise;  and  then,  finding  opportunity,  the 
plaintiff  would  be  intreating  the  defendant  to 
make  him  a  new  lease  of  the  premises  in  question; 
and  sayeth  that  it  is  at  least  three  years  since 
[i.e.,  in  1597]  he,  this  deponent,  first  heard  the 
plaintiif  labor  and  entreat  the  defendant  for  a  new 
lease."  l  Cuthbert  tells  us  that  Alleyn  did  not 
positively  refuse  to  renew  the  lease,  "but  for  some 
causes,  which  he  feigned,  did  defer  the  same  from 
time  to  time,  but  yet  gave  hope  to  your  subject, 
and  affirmed  that  he  would  make  him  such  a 
lease."  2 

Cuthbert's  anxiety  in  this  matter  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that  the  old  lease  gave  him  the  right 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  246.  2  Ibid.,  p.  184. 


THE   THEATRE  61 

to  tear  down  the  Theatre  and  carry  away  the  tim- 
ber and  other  materials  to  his  own  use,  provided 
he  did  so  before  the  expiration  of  the  twenty-one 
years.  Yet,  relying  on  Alleyn's  promises  to  re- 
new the  lease,  he  "did  forbear  to  pull  downe  and 
carry  away  the  timber  and  stuff  employed  for  the 
said  Theatre  and  playing-house  at  the  end  of  the 
said  first  term  of  one  and  twenty  years."  A  failure 
to  renew  the  lease  would  mean,  of  course,  the  loss 
of  the  building. 

Alleyn,  though  deferring  to  sign  a  new  lease, 
allowed  Burbage  to  continue  in  possession  of  the 
property  at "  the  old  rent  of  £14."  Yet  the  Theatre 
seems  not  to  have  been  used  for  plays  after  the 
original  lease  expired.1  The  Lord  Chamberlain's 
Company,  which  had  been  occupying  the  Theatre, 
and  of  which  Richard  Burbage  was  the  chief  actor, 
had  moved  to  the  Curtain;  and  the  author  of 
Skialetheia,  printed  in  1598,  refers  to  the  old  play- 
house as  empty:  "But  see,  yonder,  one,  like  the 
unfrequented  Theatre,  walks  in  dark  silence  and 
vast  solitude."  2 

To  Cuthbert   Burbage  such  a  state  of  affairs 

1  The  lease  expired  on  April  13,  1597;  on  July  28  the  Privy- 
Council  closed  all  playhouses  until  November.  The  references 
to  the  Theatre  in  The  Remembrancia  (see  The  Malone  Society's 
Collections,  1,  78)  do  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  building  was 
then  actually  used  by  the  players. 

*  The  same  fact  is  revealed  in  the  author's  remark,  "If  my 
dispose  persuade  me  to  a  play,  I'le  to  the  Rose  or  Curtain,"  for 
at  this  time  only  the  Chamberlain's  Men  and  the  Admiral's  Men 
were  allowed  to  play. 


62     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

was  intolerable,  and  on  September  29,  1598,  he 
made  a  new  appeal  to  Alleyn.  Alleyn  proffered 
a  lease  already  drawn  up,  but  Cuthbert  would 
not  "accept  thereof"  because  of  the  "very  un- 
reasonable covenants  therein  contained."  * 

Shortly  after  this  fruitless  interview,  or  late  in 
1598,  Gyles  Alleyn  resolved  to  take  advantage  of 
the  fact  that  Cuthbert  Burbage  had  not  removed 
the  Theatre  before  the  expiration  of  the  first 
twenty-one  years.  He  contended  that  since  Cuth- 
bert had  "suffered  the  same  there  to  continue 
till  the  expiration  of  the  said  term  .  .  .  the  right 
and  interest  of  the  said  Theatre  was  both  in  law 
and  conscience  absolutely  vested"  now  in  himself; 
accordingly  he  planned  "to  pull  down  the  same, 
and  to  convert  the  wood  and  timber  thereof  to 
some  better  use  for  the  benefit"  of  himself.2 

But,  unfortunately  for  Alleyn,  Cuthbert  Bur- 
bage "got  intelligence"  of  this  purpose,  and  at 
once  set  himself  to  the  task  of  saving  his  property. 
He  and  his  brother  Richard,  the  great  actor,  took 
into  their  confidence  the  chief  members  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  Company,  then  performing  at  the 
Curtain  Playhouse,  namely  William  Shakespeare, 
John  Heminges,  Augustine  Phillips,  Thomas  Pope, 
and  William  Kempe.  These  men  agreed  to  form 
with  the  Burbages  a  syndicate  to  finance  the 
erection  of  a  new  playhouse.  The  two  Burbages 
agreed  to  bear  one-half  the  expense,  including  the 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  216,  249.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  277,  288. 


THE   THEATRE  63 

timber  and  other  materials  of  the  old  Theatre, 
and  the  five  actors  promised  to  supply  the  other 
half.  Together  they  leased  a  suitable  plot  of  land 
on  the  Bankside  near  Henslowe's  Rose,  the  lease 
dating  from  December  25,  1598.  These  details 
having  been  arranged,  it  remained  only  for  the 
Burbages  to  save  their  building  from  the  covetous- 
ness  of  Alleyn. 

On  the  night  of  December  28,  1598,1  Alleyn 
being  absent  in  the  country,  Cuthbert  Burbage, 
his  brother  Richard,  his  friend  William  Smith, 
"of  Waltham  Cross,  in  the  County  of  Hartford, 
gentleman,"  Peter  Street,  "cheefe  carpenter," 
and  twelve  others  described  as  "laborers  such  as 
wrought  for  wages,"  gathered  at  the  Theatre  and 
began  to  tear  down  the  building.  We  learn  that 
the  widow  of  James  Burbage  "was  there,  and  did 
see  the  doing  thereof,  and  liked  well  of  it";2  and 
we  may  suspect  that  at  some  time  during  the  day 
Shakespeare  and  the  other  actors  were  present  as 
interested  spectators. 

The  episode  is  thus  vividly  described  by  the 
indignant  Gyles  Allen : 

The  said  Cuthbert  Burbage,  having  intelligence 
of  your  subject's  purpose  herein,  and  unlawfully 
combining  and  confederating  himself  with  the  said 
Richard  Burbage  and  one  Peter  Street,  William 
Smith,  and  diverse  other  persons  to  the  number  of 

1  The  date,  January  20,  1599,  seems  to  be  an  error. 
1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  238. 


64     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

twelve,  to  your  subject  unknown,  did  about  the 
eight  and  twentieth  day  of  December,  in  the  one  and 
fortieth  year  of  your  highness  reign,  and  sithence 
your  highness  last  and  general  pardon,  by  the  con- 
federacy aforesaid,  riotously  assembled  themselves 
together,  and  then  and  there  armed  themselves  with 
diverse  and  many  unlawful  and  offensive  weapons, 
as  namely  swords,  daggers,  bills,  axes,  and  such  like, 
and  so  armed  did  then  repair  unto  the  said  Theatre, 
and  then  and  there  armed  as  aforesaid,  in  very  riotous, 
outrageous,  and  forceable  manner,  and  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  your  highness  realm,  attempted  to  pull 
down  the  said  Theatre.  Whereupon,  diverse  of  your 
subjects,  servants  and  farmers,  then  going  about  in 
peaceable  manner  to  procure  them  to  desist  from 
that  unlawful  enterprise,  they,  the  said  riotous  per- 
sons aforesaid,  notwithstanding  procured  then  there- 
in with  great  violence,  not  only  then  and  there  for- 
cibly and  riotously  resisting  your  subjects,  servants, 
and  farmers,  but  also  then  and  there  pulling,  break- 
ing, and  throwing  down  the  said  Theatre  in  very 
outrageous,  violent,  and  riotous  sort.1 

The  workmen,  under  the  expert  direction  of 
Peter  Street,  carried  the  timber  and  other  mate- 
rials of  the  old  Theatre  to  the  tract  of  land  on 
the  Bankside  recently  leased  by  the  new  syndi- 
cate—  as  Gyles  Alleyn  puts  it,  "did  then  also  in 
most  forcible  and  riotous  manner  take  and  carry 
away  from  thence  all  the  wood  and  timber  thereof 
unto  the  Bankside,  in  the  Parish  of  St.  Mary 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  278-79.  This  document  was  discovered 
by  J.  O.  Halliwell-Phillipps,  who  printed  extracts  in  his  Outlines. 
See  also  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres,  pp.  75-76. 


THE   THEATRE  65 

Overies,  and  there  erected  a  new  playhouse  with 
the  said  timber  and  wood." 

The  playhouse  thus  erected  was,  of  course, 
an  entirely  new  structure.  Nearly  a  quarter  of  a 
century  had  elapsed  since  James  Burbage  de- 
signed the  old  Theatre,  during  which  time  a  great 
development  had  taken  place  both  in  histrionic 
art  and  in  play  writing;  and,  no  doubt,  many  im- 
provements were  possible  in  the  stage  and  in  the 
auditorium  to  provide  better  facilities  for  the 
actors  and  greater  comfort  for  the  spectators.  In 
designing  such  improvements  the  architect  had 
the  advice  and  help  of  the  actors,  including  Shake- 
speare; and  he  succeeded  in  producing  a  playhouse 
that  was  a  model  of  excellence.  The  name  selected 
by  the  syndicate  for  their  new  building  was  "The 
Globe."  For  further  details  as  to  its  construction, 
and  for  its  subsequent  history,  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  chapter  dealing  with  that  building. 

When  Gyles  Alleyn  learned  that  the  Burbages 
had  demolished  the  Theatre  and  removed  the 
timber  to  the  Bankside,  he  was  deeply  incensed, 
not  only  at  the  loss  of  the  building,  but  also,  no 
doubt,  at  being  completely  outwitted.  At  once 
he  instituted  suit  against  Cuthbert  Burbage;  but 
he  was  so  intemperate  in  his  language  and  so  reck- 
less in  his  charges  that  he  weakened  his  case.  The 
suit  dragged  for  a  few  years,  was  in  part  referred 
to  Francis  Bacon,  and  finally  in  the  summer  of 
1601  was  dismissed.   Thus  the  history  of  the  first 


66     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

London  playhouse,  which  is  chiefly  the  history  of 
quarrels  and  litigation,  came  to  a  close. 

It  is  not  possible  now  to  indicate  exactly  the 
stay  of  the  different  troupes  at  the  Theatre;  the 
evidence  is  scattered  and  incomplete,  and  the  in- 
ferences to  be  drawn  are  often  uncertain. 

When  the  building  was  opened  in  1576,  it  was, 
no  doubt,  occupied  by  the  Earl  of  Leicester's 
troupe,  of  which  Burbage  was  the  manager,  and 
for  which,  presumably,  the  structure  had  been  de- 
signed. Yet  other  troupes  of  players  may  also  have 
been  allowed  to  use  the  building  —  when  Leices- 
ter's Men  were  touring  the  provinces,  or,  pos- 
sibly, on  days  when  Leicester's  Men  did  not  act. 
This  arrangement  lasted  about  six  years. 

In  1582  the  use  of  the  Theatre  was  interrupted 
by  the  interference  of  Peckham.  For  a  long  time 
the  actors  "could  not  enjoy  the  premises,"  and 
Burbage  was  forced  to  keep  Peckham's  servants 
out  of  the  building  with  an  armed  guard  night 
and  day.  As  a  result  of  this  state  of  affairs,  Lei- 
cester's troupe  was  dissolved;  "many  of  the 
players,"  we  are  told,  were  driven  away,  and  the 
rest  "forsook  the  said  Theatre."  The  last  notice 
of  these  famous  players  is  a  record  of  their  per- 
formance at  Court  on  February  10,  1583. 

Shortly  after  this,  in  March,  1583,  Tilney,  the 
Master  of  the  Revels,  organized  under  royal  pat- 
ronage a  new  company  called  the  Queen's  Men. 
For  this  purpose  he  selected  twelve  of  the  best 


THE   THEATRE  67 

actors  of  the  realm,  including  some  of  the  mem- 
bers of  Leicester's  company.1  The  two  best-known 
actors  in  the  new  organization  were  the  Queen's 
favorite  comedian,  Richard  Tarleton,  the  immor- 
tal "Lord  of  Mirth,"  and  John  Lanham,  the  leader 
and  apparently  the  manager  of  the  troupe.  James 
Burbage,  who  may  by  this  time,  if  not  before,  have 
retired  from  acting,  was  not  included. 

The  newly  organized  Queen's  Men  in  all  prob- 
ability occupied  the  Theatre  which  had  been  left 
vacant  by  the  dissolution  of  Leicester's  company. 
Mr.  Wallace  denies  this,  mainly  on  the  evidence 
of  a  permit  issued  by  the  Lord  Mayor,  November 
28,  1583,  granting  the  Queen's  Men  the  privilege 
of  acting  "at  the  sign  of  the  Bull  [Inn]  in  Bishop- 
gate  Street,  and  the  sign  of  the  Bell  [Inn]  in  Gra- 
cious Street,  and  nowhere  else  within  this  city." 
But  this  permit,  I  think,  lends  scant  support  to 
Mr.  Wallace's  contention.  The  Lord  Mayor  had 
no  authority  to  issue  a  license  for  the  Queen's 
Men  to  play  at  the  Theatre,  for  that  structure 
was  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  city.  The  Privy 
Council  itself,  no  doubt,  had  issued  such  a  general 
license  when  the  company  was  organized  under 
royal  patronage.2   And  now,  ten  months  later,  on 

1  For  a  list  of  the  Queen's  Men  see  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  II. 

1  Such  a  license  would  include  also  permission  to  act  in  the 
provinces.  This  latter  was  soon  needed,  for  shortly  after  their 
organization  the  Queen's  Men  were  driven  by  the  plague  to  tour 
the  provinces.  They  were  in  Cambridge  on  July  9,  and  prob- 
ably returned  to  London  shortly  after.  See  Murray,  English 
Dramatic  Companies,  1,  8. 


68     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

November  26,  1583,  the  Council  sends  to  the  Lord 
Mayor  a  request  "that  Her  Majesty's  players 
may  be  suffered  to  play  .  .  .  within  the  city  and 
liberties  between  this  and  shrovetide  next"  x  —  in 
other  words,  during  the  winter  season  when  access 
to  the  Theatre  was  difficult.  It  was  customary  for 
troupes  to  seek  permission  to  act  within  the  city 
during  the  winter  months.2  Thus  the  Queen's 
Men,  in  a  petition  written  probably  in  the  au- 
tumn of  the  following  year,  1584,  requested  the 
Privy  Council  to  dispatch  "favorable  letters  unto 
the  Lord  Mayor  of  London  to  permit  us  to 
exercise  within  the  city,"  and  the  Lord  Mayor 
refused,  with  the  significant  remark  that  "if  in 
winter  .  .  .  the  foulness  of  season  do  hinder  the 
passage  into  the  fields  to  play,  the  remedy  is  ill 
conceived  to  bring  them  into  London."  3  Obvi- 
ously the  Queen's  Men  were  seeking  permission 
to  play  in  the  city  only  during  the  cold  winter 
months;  during  the  balmy  spring,  summer,  and 
autumn  months  —  for  actors  the  best  season  of 
the  year  —  they  occupied  their  commodious  play- 
house in  "the  fields." 

That  this  playhouse  for  a  time,  at  least,  was 
the  Theatre  is  indicated  by  several  bits  of  evi- 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  66. 

2  Lord  Hunsdon,  on  October  8,  1594,  requested  the  Lord 
Mayor  to  permit  the  Chamberlain's  Men  "to  play  this  winter 
time  within  the  city  at  the  Cross  Keys  in  Gracious  Street."  See 
The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  67. 

3  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  170,  172. 


THE   THEATRE  69 

dence.  Thus  the  author  of  Martinis  Month's  Miiid 
(1589)  speaks  of  "  twittle-twattles  that  I  had 
learned  in  ale-houses  and  at  the  Theatre  of  Lan- 
ham  and  his  fellows."  Again,  Nash,  in  Pierce  Penni- 
less (1592),  writes:  "Tarleton  at  the  Theatre  made 
jests  of  him";  Harrington,  in  The  Metamorphosis 
of  Ajax  (1596):  "Which  word  was  after  admitted 
into  the  Theatre  with  great  applause,  by  the  mouth 
of  Master  Tarleton";  and  the  author  of  Tarlton's 
Newes  out  of  Purgatory  (c.  1589)  represents  Tarle- 
ton as  connected  with  the  Theatre.  Now,  unless 
Lanham,  Tarleton,  and  their  "fellows"  usually 
or  sometimes  acted  at  the  Theatre,  it  is  hard  to 
understand  these  and  other  similar  passages. 

The  following  episode  tends  to  prove  the  same 
thing.  On  June  18,  1584,  William  Fleetwood,  Re- 
corder, wrote  to  Lord  Burghley: l 

Right  honorable  and  my  very  good  lord.  Upon 
Whitsunday  there  was  a  very  good  sermon  preached 
at  the  new  churchyard  near  Bethelem,  whereat  my 
Lord  Mayor  was  with  his  brethren;  and  by  reason 
no  plays  were  the  same  day,  all  the  city  was  quiet. 
Upon  Monday  I  was  at  the  Court.  .  .  .  That  night 
I  returned  to  London  and  found  all  the  wards  full  of 
watchers;  the  cause  thereof  was  for  that  very  near 
the  Theatre  or  Curtain,  at  the  time  of  the  plays, 
there  lay  a  prentice  sleeping  upon  the  grass;  and  one 
Challes,  at  Grostock,  did  turn  upon  the  toe  upon  the 
belly  of  the  same  prentice.  Whereupon  the  appren- 
tice start  up. 

1  The  letter  is  printed  in  full  in  The  Malone  Society's  Collec- 
tions, 1,  164. 


yo     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

In  the  altercation  that  followed,  Challes  re- 
marked that  "prentices  were  but  the  scum  of  the 
world."  This  led  to  a  general  rising  of  apprentices, 
and  much  disorder  throughout  the  city.  Fleet- 
wood records  the  upshot  thus : 

Upon  Sunday  my  Lord  [Mayor]  sent  two  alder- 
men to  the  court  for  the  suppressing  and  pulling 
down  of  the  Theatre  and  Curtain.  All  the  Lords  [of 
the  Privy  Council]  agreed  thereunto  saving  my  Lord 
Chamberlain  and  Mr.  Vice-Chamberlain.  But  we 
obtained  a  letter  to  suppress  them  all.  Upon  the 
same  night  I  sent  for  the  Queen's  Players  [at  the 
Theatre?]  and  my  Lord  Arundel's  Players  [at  the 
Curtain?]  and  they  all  willingly  obeyed  the  Lords's 
letters.  The  chiefest  of  Her  Highness's  Players 
advised  me  to  send  for  the  owner  of  the  Theatre 
[James  Burbage  *],  who  was  a  stubborn  fellow,  and 
to  bind  him.  I  did  so.  He  sent  me  word  he  was 
my  Lord  of  Hundson's  man,  and  that  he  would  not 
come  at  me;  but  he  would  in  the  morning  ride  to 
my  lord. 

The  natural  inference  from  all  this  is  that  the 
Queen's  Men  and  Lord  Arundel's  Men  were  then 
playing  outside  the  city  where  they  could  be  con- 
trolled only  by  "the  Lords's  Letters";  that  the 
Queen's  Men  were  occupying  the  Theatre,  and 
that  James  Burbage  was  (as  we  know)  not  a  mem- 

1  This  could  not  have  been  Hide,  as  usually  stated.  Hide  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  management  of  the  Theatre,  and  was  not 
"my  Lord  of  Hunsdon's  man."  Hide's  connection  with  the 
Theatre  as  sketched  in  this  chapter  shows  the  absurdity  of  such 
an  interpretation  of  the  document. 


THE   THEATRE  71 

ber  of  that  company,  but  merely  stood  to  them 
in  the  relation  of  "owner  of  the  Theatre." 

What  Burbage  meant  by  calling  himself  "my 
Lord  of  Hunsdon's  man"  is  not  clear.  Mr.  Wal- 
lace contends  that  when  Leicester's  Men  were 
dissolved,  Burbage  organized  "around  the  rem- 
nants of  Leicester's  Company"  a  troupe  under 
the  patronage  of  Lord  Hunsdon,  and  that  this 
troupe,  and  not  the  Queen's  Men,  occupied  the 
Theatre  thereafter.1  But  we  hear  of  Hunsdon's 
Men  at  Ludlow  in  July,  1582;  and  we  find  them 
presenting  a  play  at  Court  on  December  27,  1582. 
Since  Leicester's  troupe  is  recorded  as  acting  at 
Court  as  late  as  February  10,  1583,  it  seems  un- 
likely that  Mr.  Wallace's  theory  as  to  the  origin 
of  Hunsdon's  Men  is  true.  It  may  be,  however, 
that  after  the  dissolution  of  Leicester's  Men,  Bur- 
bage associated  himself  with  Hunsdon's  Men,  and 
it  may  be  that  he  allowed  that  relatively  unimpor- 
tant company  to  occupy  the  Theatre  for  a  short 
time.  Hunsdon's  Men  seem  to  have  been  mainly 
a  traveling  troupe;  Mr.  Murray  states  that  no- 
tices of  them  "occur  frequently  in  the  provinces," 
but  we  hear  almost  nothing  of  them  in  London. 
Indeed,  at  the  time  of  the  trouble  described  by 
Fleetwood,  Hunsdon's  Men  were  in  Bath.2  If 
Burbage  was  a  member  of  the  troupe,  he  certainly 
did  not  accompany  them  on  their  extended  tours; 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  n. 

1  Murray,  English  Dramatic  Companies,  i,  321. 


72     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

and  when  they  played  in  London,  if  they  used  the 
Theatre,  they  must  have  used  it  jointly  with  the 
Queen's  Men. 

Late  in  1585  the  Theatre  was  affiliated  with  the 
adjacent  Curtain.  Burbage  and  Brayne  made  an 
agreement  with  the  proprietor  of  that  playhouse 
whereby  the  Curtain  might  be  used  "as  an  easore" 
[easer?]  to  the  Theatre,  and  "the  profits  of  the 
said  two  playhouses  might  for  seven  years  space 
be  in  divident  between  them."  This  agreement, 
we  know,  was  carried  out,  but  whether  it  led  to 
an  exchange  of  companies,  or  what  effect  it  had 
upon  the  players,  we  cannot  say.  Possibly  to  this 
period  of  joint  management  may  be  assigned  the 
witticism  of  Dick  Tarleton  recorded  as  having  been 
uttered  "at  the  Curtain"  where  the  Queen's  Men 
were  then  playing.1  It  may  even  be  that  as  one 
result  of  the  affiliation  of  the  two  houses  the 
Queen's  Men  were  transferred  to  the  Curtain. 

In  1590,  as  we  learn  from  the  deposition  of  John 
Alleyn,  the  Theatre  was  being  used  by  the  Ad- 
miral's Men.2  This  excellent  company  had  been 
formed  early  in  1589  by  the  separation  of  certain 
leading  players  from  Worcester's  Men,  and  it  had 
probably  occupied  the  Theatre  since  its  organiza- 
tion. Its  star  actor,  Edward  Alleyn,  was  then  at 
the  height  of  his  powers,  and  was  producing  with 

1  Tarhon's  Jests,  ed.  by  J.  0.  Halliwell,  p.  16.  Tarleton  died 
in  1588. 

2  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  pp.  ioi,  126. 


THE   THEATRE  73 

great  success  Marlowe's  splendid  plays.  We  may 
suppose  that  the  following  passage  refers  to  the 
performance  of  the  Admiral's  Men  at  the  Theatre: 

He  had  a  head  of  hair  like  one  of  my  devils  in  Dr. 
Faustus,  when  the  old  Theatre  crackt  and  frightened 
the  audience.1 

Late  in  1590  the  Admiral's  Men  seem  to  have  been 
on  bad  terms  with  Burbage,2  and  when  John 
Alleyn  made  his  deposition,  February  6,  1592,  they 
had  certainly  left  the  Theatre.  Mr.  Greg,  from 
entirely  different  evidence,  has  concluded  that 
they  were  dispersed  in  1591,3  and  this  conclusion 
is  borne  out  by  the  legal  document  cited  above. 

The  next  company  that  we  can  definitely  asso- 
ciate with  the  Theatre  was  the  famous  Lord  Cham- 
berlain's Men.  On  April  16,  1594,  Lord  Strange, 
the  Earl  of  Derby,  died,  and  the  chief  members  of 
his  troupe  —  William  Shakespeare,  Richard  Bur- 
bage, John  Heminges,  William  Kempe,  Thomas 
Pope,  George  Bryan,  and  Augustine  Phillips  — 
organized  a  new  company  under  the  patronage  of 
the  Lord  Chamberlain.  For  ten  days,  in  June,  1594, 
they  acted  at  Newington  Butts  under  the  man- 
agement of  Philip  Henslowe,  then  went,  prob- 
ably at  once,  to  the  Theatre,  which  they  made 
their  home  until  the  Burbage  lease  of  the  prop- 

1   The  Black  Booke,  1604.  '  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  101. 

s  Greg,  Henslowe' s  Diary,  11,  83.  The  Admiral's  Men  were 
reorganized  in  1594,  and  occupied  the  Rose  under  Hcnslowe's 
management. 


74    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

erty  expired  in  the  spring  of  1597.  Here,  among 
other  famous  plays,  they  produced  the  original 
Hamlet,  thus  referred  to  by  Lodge  in  Wifs  Mis- 
eries 1596: 

He  looks  as  pale  as  the  visard  of  the  ghost  which 
cries  so  miserably  at  the  Theatre,  like  an  oyster- 
wife,  "Hamlet,  revenge!" 

And  here,  too,  they  presented  all  of  Shakespeare's 
early  masterpieces. 

Their  connection  with  the  building  ceased  in 
1597  at  the  expiration  of  the  Burbage  lease;  but 
their  association  with  the  proprietors  of  the 
Theatre  was  permanent.  Their  subsequent  his- 
tory, as  also  the  history  of  the  Burbage  brothers, 
will  be  found  in  the  chapters  dealing  with  the 
Globe  and  the  Second  Blackfriars.1 

1  For  other  but  unimportant  references  to  the  Theatre  see  The 
Malone  Society's  Collections,  vol.  i:  disorder  at,  October,  1577, 
p.  153;  disorder  at,  on  Sunday,  April,  1580,  p.  46;  fencing  al- 
lowed at,  July,  1582,  p.  57;  fencing  forbidden  at,  May,  1583,  p. 
62;  to  be  closed  during  infection,  May,  1583,  p.  63;  complaint 
against,  by  the  Lord  Mayor,  September,  1 594,  p.  76.  And  see 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  1,  363,  for  a  special  performance 
there  by  a  "virgin,"  February  22,  1582. 


CHAPTER   IV 
THE   CURTAIN 

ALTHOUGH  James  Burbage  was,  as  his  son 
asserted,  "the  first  builder  of  playhouses," 
a  second  public  playhouse  followed  hard  on  the 
Theatre,  probably  within  twelve  months.  It  was 
erected  a  short  distance  to  the  south  of  the  Theatre, 
—  that  is,  nearer  the  city,  —  and,  like  that  build- 
ing, it  adjoined  Finsbury  Field.1  To  the  two  play- 
houses the  audiences  came  trooping  over  the 
meadows,  in  "great  multidudes,"  the  Lord  Mayor 
tells  us;  and  the  author  of  Tarlton,s  Newes  out  of 
Purgatory  (c.  1589)  describes  their  return  to  Lon- 
don thus:  "With  that  I  waked,  and  saw  such  con- 
course of  people  through  the  fields  that  I  knew 
the  play  was  done."  2 

The  new  playhouse  derived  its  name  from  the 
Curtain  estate,  on  which  it  was  erected.3  This 
estate  was  formerly  the  property  of  the  Priory  of 
Holywell,  and  was  described  in  1538  as  "scituata 
et  existentia  extra  portas  ejusdem  nuper  monas- 
terii  prope  pasturam   dicte  nuper  Priorisse,  vo- 

1  The  site  is  probably  marked  by  Curtain  Court  in  Chasserau's 
survey  of  1745,  reproduced  on  page  79. 

1  Ed.  by  J.  O.  Halliwell,  for  The  Shakespeare  Society  (1844), 
p.  105. 

1  The  Rose  and  the  Red  Bull  derived  their  names  in  a  similar 
way  from  the  estates  on  which  they  were  erected. 


76     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

catam  the  CurteineT  l  Why  it  was  so  called  is  not 
clear.  The  name  may  have  been  derived  from  some 
previous  owner  of  the  property;  it  may,  as  Collier 
thought,  have  come  from  some  early  association 
with  the  walls  (curtains)  or  defenses  of  the  city; 
or,  it  may  have  come,  as  Tomlins  suggests,  from  the 
mediaeval  Latin  cortina,  meaning  a  court,  a  close, 
a  farm  enclosure.2  Whatever  its  origin  —  the  last 
explanation  seems  the  most  plausible  —  the  in- 
teresting point  is  that  it  had  no  connection  what- 
ever with  a  stage  curtain. 

The  building  was  probably  opened  to  the  Lon- 
don public  in  the  summer  or  autumn  of  1577.  The 
first  reference  to  it  is  found  in  T[homas]  W[hite]'s 
Sermon  Preached  at  Pawles  Crosse  on  Sunday  the 
Thirde  of  November,  1577:  "Behold  the  sumptuous 
theatre  houses,  a  continual  monument  of  Lon- 
don's prodigality  and  folly"; 3  and  a  reference  to  it 
by  name  appears  in  Northbrooke's  A  Treatise, 
licensed  December,  1577:  "Those  places,  also, 
which  are  made  up  and  builded  for  such  plays 
and  interludes,  as  the  Theatre  and  Curtain." 4 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  I,  364. 

2  Tomlins,  Origin  of  the  Curtain  Theatre,  and  Mistakes  Regard- 
ing It,  in  The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers  (1844),  p.  29. 

3  J.  D.  Wilson,  The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature,  vi, 
435,  says  that  this  sermon  was  "delivered  at  Paul's  cross  on 
9  December,  1 576  and,  apparently,  repeated  on  3  November  in 
the  following  year."  This  is  incorrect;  White  did  preach  a  ser- 
mon at  Paul's  Cross  on  December  9,  but  not  the  sermon  from 
which  this  quotation  is  drawn. 

*  Ed.  by  J.  P.  Collier,  for  The  Shakespeare  Society  (1843), 
p.  85. 


THE   CURTAIN  77 

Like  the  Theatre,  the  Curtain  was  a  peculiarly- 
shaped  building,  specially  designed  for  acting; 
"  those  playhouses  that  are  erected  and  built  only 
for  such  purposes  .  .  .  namely  the  Curtain  and 
the  Theatre,"  l  writes  the  Privy  Council;  and  the 
German  traveler,  Samuel  Kiechel,  who  visited 
London  in  1585,  describes  them  as  " sonderbare" 
structures.  They  are  usually  mentioned  together, 
and  in  such  a  way  as  to  suggest  similarity  of  shape 
as  well  as  of  purpose.  We  may,  I  think,  reasonably 
suppose  that  the  Curtain  was  in  all  essential  de- 
tails a  copy  of  Burbage's  Theatre.2  Presumably, 
then,  it  was  polygonal  (or  circular)  in  shape,3  was 
constructed  of  timber,  and  was  finished  on  the 
outside  with  lime  and  plaster.  The  interior,  as 
the  evidence  already  cited  in  the  chapter  on  the 
Theatre  shows,  consisted  of  three  galleries  sur- 
rounding an  open  yard.  There  was  a  platform 
projecting  into  the  middle  of  the  yard,  with  dress- 
ing-rooms at  the  rear,  "heavens"  overhead,  and 
a  flagpole  rising  above  the  "heavens."  That  some 
sign  was  displayed  in  front  of  the  door  is  likely. 
Malone  writes:  "The  original  sign  hung  out  at  this 
playhouse   (as  Mr.   Steevens  has  observed)  was 

1  Dasent,  Acts  oj  the  Privy  Council,  xxvn,  313. 

*  It  seems,  however,  to  have  been  smaller  than  the  Theatre. 

*  Johannes  de  Witt  describes  the  Theatre  and  the  Curtain 
along  with  the  Swan  and  the  Rose  as  "amphitheatra"  (see  page 
167).  It  is  quite  possible  that  Shakespeare  refers  to  the  Curtain 
in  the  Prologue  to  Henry  V  as  "this  wooden  O,"  though  the 
reference  may  be  to  the  Globe. 


78     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

the  painting  of  a  curtain  striped."  *  Aubrey  re- 
cords that  Ben  Jonson  "acted  and  wrote,  but  both 
ill,  at  the  Green  Curtain,  a  kind  of  nursery  or 
obscure  playhouse  somewhere  in  the  suburbs,  I 
think  towards  Shoreditch  or  Clerkenwell."  2  By 
"at  the  Green  Curtain"  Aubrey  means,  of  course, 
"at  the  sign  of  the  Green  Curtain";  but  the  evi- 
dence of  Steevens  and  of  Aubrey  is  too  vague  and 
uncertain  to  warrant  any  definite  conclusions. 

Of  the  early  history  of  the  Curtain  we  know 
little,  mainly  because  it  was  not,  like  certain 
other  playhouses,  the  subject  of  extensive  litiga- 
tion. We  do  not  even  know  who  planned  and 
built  it.  The  first  evidence  of  its  ownership  ap- 
pears fifteen  years  after  its  erection,  in  some  legal 
documents  connected  with  the  Theatre.3  In  July, 
1592,  Henry  Lanman,  described  as  "of  London, 
gentleman,  of  the  age  of  54  years,"  deposed: 
"That  true  it  is  about  7  years  now  shall  be  this 
next  winter,  they,  the  said  Burbage  and  Brayne, 
having  the  profits  of  plays  made  at  the  Theatre, 
and  this  deponent  having  the  profits  of  the  plays 
done  at  the  house  called  the  Curtain  near  to  the 
same,  the  said  Burbage  and  Brayne,  taking  the 
Curtain  as  an  esore  4  to  their  playhouse,  did  of 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  54;  cf.  also  Ellis,  The  Parish  of  St. 
Leonard. 

2  Did  Steevens  base  his  statement  on  this  passage  in  Aubrey? 

3  Brayne  v.  Burbage,  1592,  printed  in  full  by  Wallace,  The 
First  London  Theatre,  pp.  109-52.   See  especially  pp.  126,  148. 

4  Easer? 


THE   CURTAIN 


79 


THE  SITE  OF  THE  CURTAIN   PLAYHOUSE 

From  An  Actual  Survey  of  the  Parish  of  St.  Leonard  in  Shoreditch,  taken  in  the 
year  1745,  by  Peter  Chasserau,  Surveyor.  The  key  to  the  map  gives  "93"  as 
Curtain  Court,  probably  the  site  of  the  old  playhouse;  "87"  as  New  Inn  Yard, 
and  ''94"  as  Holywell  Court,  both  interesting  in  connection  with  Burbage's 
Theatre.   (Redrawn  from  the  original  for  this  volume.) 


their  own  motion  move  this  deponent  that  he 
would  agree  that  the  profits  of  the  said  two  play- 
houses might  for  seven  years  space  be  in  divident 
between  them."  * 

From  this  statement  it  is  evident  that  Henry 

1  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  148;  cf.  p.  126. 


80     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Lanman  was  the  sole  proprietor  of  the  Curtain  as 
far  back  as  1585,  and  the  presumption  is  that  his 
proprietorship  was  of  still  earlier  date.  This  pre- 
sumption is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  in  a 
sale  of  the  Curtain  estate  early  in  1582,  he  is 
specifically  mentioned  as  having  a  tenure  of  an 
"edifice  or  building"  erected  in  the  Curtain  Close, 
that  is,  that  section  of  the  estate  next  to  the 
Field,  on  which  the  playhouse  was  built.1  Since 
Lanman  is  not  mentioned  as  having  any  other 
property  on  the  estate,  the  "edifice  or  building" 
referred  to  was  probably  the  playhouse.  The  docu- 
ment gives  no  indication  as  to  how  long  he  had 
held  possession  of  the  "edifice,"  but  the  date  of 
sale,  March,  1582,  carries  us  back  to  within  four 
years  of  the  erection  of  the  Curtain,  and  it  seems 
reasonable  to  suppose,  though  of  course  we  can- 
not be  sure,  that  Lanman  had  been  proprietor  of 
the  building  from  the  very  beginning.2 

Certain  records  of  the  sale  of  the  Curtain  estate 
shortly  before  and  shortly  after  the  erection  of 
the  playhouse  are  preserved,  but  these  throw  very 

1  Tomlins,  op.  cit.,  pp.  29-31. 

2  Of  this  Henry  Lanman  we  know  nothing  beyond  the  facts 
here  revealed.  Possibly  he  was  a  brother  of  the  distinguished 
actor  John  Lanman  (the  name  is  variously  spelled  Lanman, 
Laneman,  Lenmann,  Laneham,  Laynman,  Lanham),  one  of  the 
chief  members  of  Leicester's  troupe,  and  one  of  the  twelve  men 
selected  in  1583  to  form  the  Queen's  Men.  But  speculation  of 
this  sort  is  vain.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  the  future  some  student 
will  investigate  the  life  of  this  obscure  theatrical  manager,  and 
trace  his  connection  with  the  early  history  of  the  drama. 


THE   CURTAIN  81 

little  light  upon  the  playhouse  itself.  We  learn 
that  on  February  20,  1567,  Lord  Mountjoy  and 
his  wife  sold  the  estate  to  Maurice  Longe,  cloth- 
worker,  and  his  son  William  Longe,  for  the  sum 
of  £60;  and  that  on  August  23,  1571,  Maurice 
Longe  and  his  wife  sold  it  to  the  then  Lord  Mayor, 
Sir  William  Allyn,  for  the  sum  of  £200.  In  both 
documents  the  property  is  described  in  the  same 
words:  "All  that  house,  tenement  or  lodge  com- 
monly called  the  Curtain,  and  all  that  parcel  of 
ground  and  close,  walled  and  enclosed  with  a 
brick  wall  on  the  west  and  north  parts,  called  also 
the  Curtain  Close."  The  lodge  here  referred  to, 
generally  known  as  "Curtain  House,"  was  on, 
or  very  near,  Holywell  Lane;1  the  playhouse,  as 
already  stated,  was  erected  in  the  close  near  the 
Field.2 

How  long  Sir  William  Allyn  held  the  property, 
or  why  it  reverted  to  the  Longe  family,  we  do  not 
know.  But  on  March  18,  1582,  we  find  William 
Longe,  the  son  of  "Maurice  Longe,  citizen  and 
clothworker,  of  London,  deceased,"  selling  the 
same  property,  described  in  the  same  words,  to 
one  "Thomas  Harberte,  citizen  and  girdler,  of 
London."  In  the  meantime,  of  course,  the  play- 
house had  been  erected,  but  no  clear  or  direct 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  I,  365. 

*  The  Privy  Council  on  March  10,  1601,  refers  to  it  as  "The 
Curtaine  in  Moorefeildes";  in  ancient  times,  says  Stow,  Moore- 
fields  extended  to  Holywell.  See  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  1, 
364. 


82     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

mention  of  the  building  is  made  in  the  deed  of 
sale.  Possibly  it  was  included  in  the  convention- 
ally worded  phrase:  "and  all  and  singular  other 
messuages,  tenements,  edifices,  and  buildings,  with 
all  and  singular  their  appurtenances,  erected  and 
builded  upon  the  said  close  called  the  Curtain."  l 
Among  the  persons  named  as  holding  tenures  of 
the  above-mentioned  "edifices  and  buildings"  in 
the  close  was  Henry  Lanman.  It  seems  not  im- 
probable, therefore,  that  the  Curtain,  like  the 
Theatre,  was  erected  on  leased  ground. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  a  connected  history  of 
the  Curtain.  Most  of  the  references  to  it  that 
we  now  possess  are  invectives  in  early  puritanical 
writings,  or  bare  mention,  along  with  other  play- 
houses, in  letters  or  ordinances  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil and  the  Lord  Mayor.  Such  references  as  these 
do  not  much  help  us  in  determining  what  com- 
panies successively  occupied  the  building,  or  what 
varying  fortunes  marked  its  ownership  and  man- 
agement. Yet  a  few  scattered  facts  have  sifted 
down  to  us,  and  these  I  have  arranged  in  chrono- 
logical order. 

On  the  afternoon  of  April  6,  1580,  an  earth- 
quake, especially  severe  in  Holywell,  shook  the 
building  during  the  performance  of  a  play,  and 
greatly  frightened  the  audience.  Munday  says 
merely:  "at  the  playhouses  the  people  came  run- 
ning forth,  surprised  with  great  astonishment";2 
1  Tomlins,  op.  cit.,  p.  31.        2  View  of  Sundry  Examples,  1580. 


THE   CURTAIN  83 

but  Stubbes,  the  Puritan,  who  saw  in  the  event  a 
"fearful  judgment  of  God,"  writes  with  fervor: 
"The  like  judgment  almost  did  the  Lord  show 
unto  them  a  little  before,  being  assembled  at  their 
theatres  to  see  their  bawdy  interludes  and  other 
trumperies  practised,  for  He  caused  the  earth 
mightily  to  shake  and  quaver,  as  though  all  would 
have  fallen  down;  whereat  the  people,  sore  amazed, 
some  leapt  down  from  the  top  of  the  turrets,  pin- 
nacles, and  towers  where  they  stood,  to  the  ground, 
whereof  some  had  their  legs  broke,  some  their 
arms,  some  their  backs,  some  hurt  one  where,  some 
another,  and  many  score  crushed  and  bruised."  1 

The  disturbance  at  the  Theatre  and  the  Cur- 
tain in  1584,  when  one  Challes  "did  turn  upon 
the  toe  upon  the  belly  of"  an  apprentice  "sleep- 
ing upon  the  grass"  in  the  Field  near  by,  has  been 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter.  If  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  facts  there  given  is  correct,  Lord 
Arundel's  Players  were  then  occupying  the  Cur- 
tain. 

In  the  winter  of  1585  Lanman  entered  into  his 
seven  years'  agreement  with  Burbage  and  Brayne 
by  which  the  Theatre  and  the  Curtain  were  placed 
under  one  management,  and  the  profits  shared 
"in  divident  between  them."  This  agreement  was 
faithfully  kept  by  both  parties,  but  there  is  no 

1  The  Anatomy  of  Abuses,  ed.  F.  J.  Furnivall,  New  Shakspere 
Society,  p.  180.  For  other  descriptions  of  this  earthquake  see 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  I,  369. 


84    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

evidence  that  after  the  expiration  of  the  seven 
years,  in  the  winter  of  1592,  the  affiliation  was 
continued.  What  effect  the  arrangement  had  upon 
the  companies  of  players  occupying  the  two 
theatres  we  cannot  now  determine.  To  this  period, 
however,  I  would  assign  the  appearance  of  the 
Queen's  Men  at  the  Curtain.1 

On  July  28,  1597,  as  a  result  of  the  performance 
of  Thomas  Na she's  The  Isle  of  Dogs,  by  Pem- 
broke's Men  at  the  Swan,2  the  Privy  Council 
ordered  the  plucking  down  of  "the  Curtain  and 
the  Theatre."  3  The  order,  however,  was  not  car- 
ried out,  and  in  October  plays  were  allowed  again 
as  before. 

At  this  time  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men  were 
at  the  Curtain,  having  recently  moved  thither  in 
consequence  of  the  difficulties  Cuthbert  Burbage 
was  having  with  Gyles  Alleyn  over  the  Theatre 
property.  During  the  stay  of  the  Chamberlain's 
Company,  which  numbered  among  its  members 
William  Shakespeare,  Richard  Burbage,  William 
Kempe  (who  had  succeeded  Tarleton  in  popular 
favor  as  a  clown),  John  Heminges,  Thomas  Pope, 
and  Augustine  Phillips,  the  playhouse  probably 
attained  its  greatest  distinction.  Both  Shake- 
speare and  Jonson  wrote  plays  for  the  troupe; 

1  Tarlton's  Jests,  ed.  by  J.  O.  Halliwell  for  the  Shakespeare 
Society  (1844),  p.  16.  For  a  discussion  see  the  preceding  chapter 
on  the  Theatre,  p.  72. 

2  For  details  see  the  chapter  on  the  Swan. 

3  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxvn,  313. 


THE   CURTAIN  85 

Romeo  and  Juliet,  we  are  told,  "won  Curtain 
plaudities,"  as  no  doubt  did  many  other  of  Shake- 
speare's early  masterpieces;  and  Jonson's  Every 
Man  in  His  Humour  created  such  enthusiasm 
here  on  its  first  performance  as  to  make  its  author 
famous.1 

In  the  summer  of  1599  the  Chamberlain's  Men 
moved  into  their  splendid  new  home,  the  Globe, 
on  the  Bankside,  and  the  Curtain  thus  aban- 
doned fell  on  hard  times.  Perhaps  it  was  let  occa- 
sionally to  traveling  troupes;  in  Jeafrreson's  Mid- 
dlesex County  Records,  under  the  date  of  March 
11,  1600,  is  a  notice  of  the  arrest  of  one  William 
Haukins  "  charged  with  a  purse  taken  at  a  play  at 
the  Curtain."  But  shortly  after,  in  April,  1600, 
when  Henslowe  and  Alleyn  began  to  erect  their 
splendid  new  Fortune  Playhouse,  they  were  able 
to  give  the  impression  to  Tilney,  the  Master  of 
the  Revels,  and  to  the  Privy  Council,  that  the 
Curtain  was  to  be  torn  down.  Thus  in  the  Coun- 
cil's warrant  for  the  building  of  the  Fortune, 
dated  April  8,  1600,  we  read  that  "another  house 
is  [to  be]  pulled  down  instead  of  it"; 2  and  when 
the  Puritans  later  made  vigorous  protests  against 
the  erection  of  the  Fortune,  the  Council  defended 
itself  by  stating  that  "their  Lordships  have  been 
informed  by  Edmund  Tilney,  Esquire,  Her  Ma- 

1  Marston,  The  Scourge  of  Villainy  (1598);  Bullen,  The  Works 
of  John  Marston,  in,  372. 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  52. 


86     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

jesty's  servant,  and  Master  of  the  Revels,  that 
the  house  now  in  hand  to  be  built  by  the  said 
Edward  Alleyn  is  not  intended  to  increase  the 
number  of  the  playhouses,  but  to  be  instead  of 
another,  namely  the  Curtain,  which  is  either  to 
be  ruined  and  plucked  down,  or  to  be  put  to  some 
other  good  use."  ! 

All  this  talk  of  the  Curtain's  being  plucked 
down  or  devoted  to  other  uses  suggests  a  con- 
templated change  in  the  ownership  or  manage- 
ment of  the  building.  We  do  not  know  when  Lan- 
man  died  (in  1592  he  described  himself  as  fifty- 
four  years  of  age),2  but  we  do  know  that  at  some 
date  prior  to  1603  the  Curtain  had  passed  into  the 
hands  of  a  syndicate.  When  this  syndicate  was 
organized,  or  who  constituted  its  members,  we 
cannot  say.  Thomas  Pope,  in  his  will,  dated  July 
22,  1603,  mentions  his  share  "of,  in,  and  to  all 
that  playhouse,  with  the  appurtenances,  called 
the  Curtain"; 3  and  John  Underwood,  in  his  will, 
dated  October  4,  1624,  mentions  his  "part  or 
share  ...  in  the  said  playhouses  called  the  Black- 
friars,  the  Globe  on  the  Bankside,  and  the  Cur- 
tain." 4  It  may  be  significant  that  both  Pope  and 
Underwood  were  sharers  also  in  the  Globe.  Since, 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  82. 

2  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  148. 

8  J.  P.  Collier,  Lives  of  the  Original  Actors  in  Shakespeare's 
Plays,  p.  127.  In  exactly  the  same  words  Pope  disposed  of  his 
share  in  the  Globe. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  230. 


THE   CURTAIN  87 

however,  further  information  is  wanting,  it  is  use- 
less to  speculate.  We  can  only  say  that  at  some 
time  after  the  period  of  Lanman's  sole  proprietor- 
ship, the  Curtain  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  group 
of  sharers;  and  that  after  a  discussion  in  1600  of 
demolishing  the  building  or  devoting  it  to  other 
uses,  it  entered  upon  a  long  and  successful  career. 

On  May  10,  1601,  "the  actors  at  the  Curtain"  * 
gave  serious  offense  by  representing  on  the  stage 
persons  "of  good  desert  and  quality,  that  are  yet 
alive,  under  obscure  manner,  but  yet  in  such  sort 
as  all  the  hearers  may  take  notice  both  of  the 
matter  and  the  persons  that  are  meant  thereby." 
The  Privy  Council  ordered  the  Justices  of  the 
Peace  to  examine  into  the  case  and  to  punish  the 
offenders.2 

Early  in  1604  a  draft  of  a  royal  patent  for  Queen 
Anne's  Players  —  who  had  hitherto  been  under 
the  patronage  of  Worcester  3  —  gives  those  players 
permission  to  act  "within  their  now  usual  houses, 
called  the  Curtain,  and  the  Boar's  Head."  4  On 
April  9,  1604,  the  Privy  Council  authorized  the 
three  companies  of  players  that  had  been  taken 
under  royal  patronage  "to  exercise  their  plays  in 
their  several  and  usual  houses  for  that  purpose, 

1  Possibly  Derby's  Men. 

2  See  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxxi,  346. 

*  The  company  was  formed  by  an  amalgamation  of  Oxford's 
and  Worcester's  Men  in  1602.  See  The  Malone  Society's  Col- 
lections, 1,  85. 

*  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  266. 


88     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

and  no  other,  viz.,  the  Globe,  scituate  in  Maiden 
Lane  on  the  Bankside  in  the  County  of  Surrey, 
the  Fortune  in  Golding  Lane,  and  the  Curtain 
in  Holywell."  '  The  King's  Men  (the  Burbage- 
Shakespeare  troupe)  occupied  the  Globe;  Prince 
Henry's  Men  (the  Henslowe-Alleyn  troupe),  the 
Fortune;  and  Queen  Anne's  Men,  the  Curtain. 

But  the  Queen's  Men  were  probably  dissatis- 
fied with  the  Curtain.  It  was  small  and  antiquated, 
and  it  must  have  suffered  by  comparison  with  the 
more  splendid  Globe  and  Fortune.  So  the  Queen's 
players  had  built  for  themselves  a  new  and  larger 
playhouse,  called  "The  Red  Bull."  This  was  prob- 
ably ready  for  occupancy  in  1605,  yet  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say  exactly  when  the  Queen's  Men  left  the 
Curtain;  their  patent  of  April  15,  1609,  gives 
them  permission  to  act  "within  their  now  usual 
houses  called  the  Red  Bull,  in  Clerkenwell,  and 
the  Curtain  in  Holywell."  2  It  may  be  that  they 
retained  control  of  the  Curtain  in  order  to  prevent 
competition. 

What  company  occupied  the  Curtain  after 
Queen  Anne's  Men  finally  surrendered  it  is  not 
clear.  Mr.  Murray  is  of  the  opinion  that  Prince 
Charles's  Men  moved  into  the  Curtain  "about 
December,  1609,  or  early  in  1610."  3 

In  1613  "a  company  of  young  men"  acted  The 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  61;  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy 
Council,  xxxii,  511. 

2  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  270. 

3  English  Dramatic  Companies,  1,  230. 


THE   CURTAIN  89 

Hector  of  Germany  "at  the  Red  Bull  and  at  the 
Curtain."  Such  plays,  however,  written  and  acted 
by  amateurs,  were  not  uncommon,  and  no  signif- 
icance can  be  attached  to  the  event. 

In  1622,  as  we  learn  from  the  Herbert  Manu- 
scripts, the  Curtain  was  being  occupied  by  Prince 
Charles's  Servants.1  In  the  same  year  the  author 
of  Vox  Graculi,  or  The  Jack  Daw's  Prognostication 
for  1623,  refers  to  it  thus:  "If  company  come 
current  to  the  Bull  and  Curtain,  there  will  be 
more  money  gathered  in  one  afternoon  than  will 
be  given  to  Kingsland  Spittle  in  a  whole  month; 
also,  if  at  this  time  about  the  hours  of  four  and 
five  it  wax  cloudy  and  then  rain  downright,  they 
shall  sit  dryer  in  the  galleries  than  those  who  are 
the  understanding  men  in  the  yard." 

Prince  Charles's  Men  did  not  remain  long  at 
the  Curtain.  At  some  date  between  June  10  and 
August  19,  1623,  they  moved  to  the  larger  and 
more  handsome  Red  Bull.2  After  this,  so  far  as  I 
can  discover,  there  is  no  evidence  to  connect  the 
playhouse  with  dramatic  performances.  Malone, 
who  presumably  bases  his  statements  on  the  now 
lost  records  of  Herbert,  says  that  shortly  after  the 
accession  of  King  Charles  I  it  "  seems  to  have  been 
used  only  by  prize-fighters."  3 

The  last  mention  of  the  Curtain  is  found  in  the 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  59;  cf.  Chalmers's  Supplemental  Apol- 
ogy, p.  213,  note  y.    Murray  eives  the  date  incorrectly  as  1623. 

2  Murray,  English  Dramatic  Companies,  I,  237,  note  I. 
•  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  54,  note  2. 


9o     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Middlesex  County  Records  under  the  date  Feb- 
ruary 21,  1627. l  It  is  merely  a  passing  reference 
to  "the  common  shoare  near  the  Curtain  play- 
house," yet  it  is  significant  as  indicating  that  the 
building  was  then  still  standing.  What  ultimately 
became  of  it  we  do  not  know.  For  a  time,  how- 
ever, its  memory  survived  in  Curtain  Court  (see 
page  79),  and  to-day  its  fame  is  perpetuated  in 
Curtain  Road. 

1  See  Jeaffreson,  Middlesex  County  Records,  m,  164,  from  which 
the  notice  was  quoted  by  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres,  p.  106. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  FIRST  BLACKFRIARS 

THE  choir  boys  of  the  Chapel  Royal,  of  Wind- 
sor, and  of  Paul's  were  all  engaged  in  pre- 
senting dramatic  entertainments  before  Queen 
Elizabeth.  Each  organization  expected  to  be  called 
upon  one  or  more  times  a  year  —  at  Christmas, 
New  Year's,  and  other  like  occasions  —  to  fur- 
nish recreation  to  Her  Majesty;  and  in  return 
for  its  efforts  each  received  a  liberal  "reward" 
in  money.  Richard  Farrant,  Master  of  the  Wind- 
sor Chapel,  was  especially  active  in  devising  plays 
for  the  Queen's  entertainment.  But  having  a 
large  family,  he  was  poor  in  spite  of  his  regular 
salary  and  the  occasional  "rewards"  he  received 
for  the  performances  of  his  Boys  at  Court;  and 
doubtless  he  often  cast  about  in  his  mind  for  some 
way  in  which  to  increase  his  meagre  income. 

In  the  spring  of  1576  James  Burbage,  having 
conceived  the  idea  of  a  building  devoted  solely  to 
plays,  had  leased  a  plot  of  ground  for  the  purpose, 
and  had  begun  the  erection  of  the  Theatre.  By 
the  autumn,  no  doubt,  the  building  was  nearing 
completion,  if,  indeed,  it  was  not  actually  open  to 
the  public;  and  the  experiment,  we  may  suppose, 
was  exciting  much  interest  in  the  dramatic  circles 


92     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

of  London.  It  seems  to  have  set  Farrant  to  think- 
ing. The  professional  actors,  he  observed,  had 
one  important  advantage  over  the  child  actors: 
not  only  could  they  present  their  plays  before 
the  Queen  and  receive  the  usual  court  reward,  but 
in  addition  they  could  present  their  plays  before 
the  public  and  thus  reap  a  second  and  richer  har- 
vest. Since  the  child  actors  had,  as  a  rule,  more 
excellent  plays  than  the  professional  troupes,  and 
were  better  equipped  with  properties  and  cos- 
tumes, and  since  they  expended  just  as  much 
energy  in  devising  plays  and  in  memorizing  and 
rehearsing  their  parts,  Farrant  saw  no  reason  why 
they,  too,  should  not  be  allowed  to  perform  before 
the  public.  This,  he  thought,  might  be  done  under 
the  guise  of  rehearsals  for  the  Court.  Possibly  the 
Queen  might  even  wink  at  regular  performances 
before  the  general  public  when  she  understood 
that  this  would  train  the  Boys  to  be  more  skilful 
actors,  would  provide  Her  Majesty  with  more 
numerous  and  possibly  more  excellent  plays,  and 
would  enable  the  Master  and  his  assistants  to  live 
in  greater  comfort  without  affecting  the  royal 
purse. 

For  Farrant  to  build  a  playhouse  specifically 
for  the  use  of  the  Children  was  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. In  the  first  place,  it  would  be  too  conspicu- 
ously a  capitalization  of  the  royal  choristers  for 
private  gain;  and  in  the  second  place,  it  would 
be  far  too  hazardous  a  business  venture  for  so  poor 


THE   FIRST   BLACKFRIARS 


93 


PRtACMING 


GREAT 
CLOISTTR. 


INNER 
CLOISTER 


BLACKFRIARS   MONASTERY 

A  plan  of  the  various  buildings  as  they  appeared  before  the  dissolution,  based 
on  the  Loseley  Manuscripts  and  other  documents,  surveys,  and  maps.  The  But- 
tery became  Farrant's,  the  Frater  Burbage's  playhouse.  (Drawn  by  the  author.) 


a  man  as  he  to  undertake.  The  more  sensible  thing 
for  him  to  do  was  to  rent  somewhere  a  large  hall 
which  could  at  small  expense  be  converted  into 
a  place  suitable  for  training  the  Children  in  their 
plays,  and  for  the  entertainment  of  select  —  pos- 
sibly  at  first   invited  —  audiences.    The   perfor- 


94    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

mances,  of  course,  were  not  to  be  heralded  by  a 
trumpet-and-drum  procession  through  the  street, 
by  the  flying  of  a  flag,  and  by  such-like  vulgar 
advertising  as  of  a  public  show;  instead,  they 
were  to  be  quiet,  presumably  "private,"  and 
were  to  attract  only  noblemen  and  those  citi- 
zens of  the  better  class  who  were  interested  in  the 
drama.1 

Such  was  Farrant's  scheme.  In  searching  for 
a  hall  suitable  for  his  purpose,  his  mind  at  once 
turned  to  the  precinct  of  Blackfriars,  where  in 
former  years  the  Office  of  the  Revels  had  been 
kept,  and  where  the  Children  had  often  rehearsed 
their  plays.  The  precinct  had  once,  as  the  name 
indicates,  been  in  the  possession  of  the  Domini- 
can or  "Black"  Friars.  The  Priory  buildings  had 
consisted  chiefly  of  a  great  church  two  hundred 
and  twenty  feet  long  and  sixty-six  feet  broad,  with 
a  cloister  on  the  south  side  of  the  church  forming 
a  square  of  one  hundred  and  ten  feet,  and  a 
smaller  cloister  to  the  south  of  this.  At  the  dis- 
solution of  the  religious  orders,  the  property 
had  passed  into  the  possession  of  the  Crown; 
hence,  though  within  the  city  walls,  it  was  not 

1  From  this  notion  of  privacy,  I  take  it,  arose  the  term  "pri- 
vate" theatre  as  distinguished  from  "common"  or  "public" 
theatre.  The  interpretation  of  the  term  suggested  by  Mr.  W.  J. 
Lawrence,  and  approved  by  Mr.  William  Archer,  namely,  that 
it  was  a  legal  device  to  escape  the  city  ordinance  of  1574,  cannot 
be  accepted.  The  city  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  precinct  of 
Blackfriars,  nor  did  Farrant  live  in  the  building. 


THK  SITES  OF  THE  TWO  BLACKFRIARS  PLAYHOUSES 
The  smaller  rectangle  at  the  north  represents  the  Buttery,  later  Farranl  'a  play- 
house;  the  larger  rectangle  represents  the  Frater,  later  Buxbage's  playhouse. 
(From  <)KriIli>-  and  Morgan's  Map  of  London,  1677,  the  site>  marked  by  the 

author.) 


THE   FIRST   BLACKFRIARS  95 

under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  city  authorities. 
Farrant  probably  did  not  anticipate  any  interfer- 
ence on  the  part  of  the  Common  Council  with  the 
royal  choristers  "practicing"  their  plays  in  order 
"to  yield  Her  Majesty  recreation  and  delight,"  yet 
the  absolute  certainty  of  being  free  from  the  ad- 
verse legislation  of  the  London  authorities  was 
not  to  be  ignored.  Moreover,  the  precinct  was 
now  the  home  of  many  noblemen  and  wealthy 
gentlemen,  and  Farrant  probably  thought  that, 
as  one  of  the  most  fashionable  residential  districts 
in  London,  it  was  suitable  for  "private"  perfor- 
mances to  be  given  by  members  of  Her  Majesty's 
household. 

In  furthering  his  project  he  sought  the  counsel 
and  aid  of  his  "very  friend"  Sir  Henry  Neville, 
Lieutenant  of  Windsor,  who,  it  is  to  be  presumed, 
was  interested  in  the  Windsor  Boys.  It  happened 
that  Neville  knew  of  exactly  such  rooms  as  were 
desired,  rooms  in  the  old  monastery  of  Blackfriars 
which  he  himself  had  once  leased  as  a  residence, 
and  which,  he  heard,  were  "to  be  let  either  pres- 
ently, or  very  shortly."  These  rooms  were  in  the 
southwestern  corner  of  the  monastery,  on  the  up- 
per floor  of  two  adjoining  buildings  formerly  used 
by  the  monks  as  a  buttery  and  a  frater.  A  history 
of  the  rooms  up  to  the  time  of  their  use  as  a  theatre 
may  be  briefly  sketched. 

In  1548  the  buttery  and  frater,  with  certain 
other  buildings,  were  let  by  King  Edward  to  Sir 


96     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Thomas  Cawarden,  Master  of  the  Revels;  and 
in  1550  they  were  granted  to  him  outright.  In 
1554  Cawarden  sold  the  northern  section  of  the 
buttery,  fifty-two  feet  in  length,  to  Lord  Cobham, 
whose  mansion  it  adjoined.  The  rest  of  the  but- 
tery, forty-six  feet  in  length,  and  the  frater,  he 
converted  into  lodgings.  Since  the  frater  was  of 
exceptional  breadth  —  fifty-two  feet  on  the  out- 
side, forty-six  feet  on  the  inside  —  he  ran  a  parti- 
tion through  its  length,  dividing  it  into  two  parts. 
The  section  of  the  frater  on  the  west  of  this  parti- 
tion he  let  to  Sir  Richard  Frith ;  the  section  on  the 
east,  with  the  remainder  of  the  buttery  not  sold 
to  Lord  Cobham,  he  let  to  Sir  John  Cheeke.  It  is 
with  the  Cheeke  Lodgings  that  we  are  especially 
concerned. 

About  September,  1554,  Cheeke  went  to  travel 
abroad,  and  surrendered  his  rooms  in  the  Black- 
friars.  Sir  Thomas  Cawarden  thereupon  made 
use  of  them  "for  the  Office  of  the  Queen's  Maj- 
esty's Revells";  thus  for  a  time  the  Cheeke  Lodg- 
ings were  intimately  connected  with  dramatic 
activities.  But  at  the  death  of  Cawarden,  in  1559, 
the  Queen  transferred  the  Office  of  the  Revels  to 
St.  John's,  and  the  Blackfriars  property  belong- 
ing to  Cawarden  passed  into  the  possession  of  Sir 
William  More. 

In  1560  the  new  proprietor  let  the  Cheeke 
Lodgings  to  Sir  Henry  Neville,  with  the  addition 
of  "a  void  piece  of  ground"  eighteen  feet  wide 


N 

/ 

/ 

/ 

V 

1 ....  _  _ 

I 
< 

r 
a 
O 

o 
a 
□ 

Z 

o 

to 

z 
< 

/      WOOD  YARD 

KITCHEN 

! 

ENTRY     WAY 



S.r  W  MORES 

\ 

o 

MANSION 

> 

1  DUCMY    CHAMBER 

o 

<      UJ 

Z    >" 

5 

a 

o 

So 

-* 

o   r 

a 

O 

a. 

-> 

V- 

UJ 

t 

O 

z 

t- 
< 

v> 

a 
o 

< 

-a: — 

1 

5 

10 

I 

1- 

CC 

< 

U- 

E 

JERNINGHAM  S 

MANSION 

O 
i    i    i 

i        i 

SO 

A  PLAN  OF  FARRANT'S  PLAYHOUSE 


Frith's  Lodging  and  the  four  southern  rooms  of  Farrant's  Lodging  were  on 
the  upper  floor  of  the  Frater;  the  two  northern  rooms  of  Farrant's  Lodging 
were  on  the  upper  floor  of  the  Buttery.  The  playhouse  was  erected  in  the 
two  rooms  last  mentioned. 


98     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

extending  west  to  Water  Lane.1  During  his  ten- 
ancy Neville  erected  certain  partitions,  built  a 
kitchen  in  the  "void  piece  of  ground,"  and  a  large 
stairway  leading  to  the  rooms  overhead.  In  1568 
he  surrendered  his  lease,  and  More  let  the  rooms 
first  to  some  "  sylk  dyers,"  and  then  in  1 571  to  Lord 
Cobham.  In  1576  Cobham  gave  up  the  rooms, 
and  More  was  seeking  a  tenant.  It  was  at  this 
auspicious  moment  that  Farrant  planned  a  pri- 
vate theatre,  and  enlisted  the  aid  of  Sir  Henry 
Neville. 

On  August  27  Farrant  and  Neville  separately 
wrote  letters  to  Sir  William  More  about  the  mat- 
ter. Farrant  respectfully  solicited  the  lease,  and 
made  the  significant  request  that  he  might  "pull 
down  one  partition,  and  so  make  two  rooms  — 
one."  Neville,  in  a  friendly  letter  beginning  with 
"hearty  commendations  unto  you  and  to  Mrs. 
More,"  and  ending  with  light  gossip,  urged  Sir 
William  to  let  the  rooms  to  Farrant,  and  recom- 
mended Farrant  as  a  desirable  tenant  ("I  dare 
answer  for  him").  Neither  letter  mentioned  the 
purpose  for  which  the  rooms,  especially  the  large 
room  referred  to  by  Farrant,  were  to  be  used;  but 
More  doubtless  understood  that  the  Windsor 
Children  were  to  practice  their  plays  there,  with 

1  This  was  enclosed  with  brick  walls,  and  the  greater  part 
used  as  a  wood-yard.  This  yard  was  later  purchased  by  James 
Burbage  when  he  secured  the  frater  for  his  playhouse.  The 
kitchen,  shed,  and  stairs,  built  on  the  eastern  part,  were  sold  to 
Cobham. 


THE   FIRST   BLACKFRIARS  99 

occasional  private  rehearsals.  Largely  as  a  result 
of  Neville's  recommendation,  More  decided  to 
let  the  rooms  to  Farrant.  The  progress  of  the 
negotiations  is  marked  by  a  letter  from  Farrant 
to  More,  dated  September  17,  1576,  requesting 
that  there  be  granted  him  also  a  certain  "little 
dark  room,"  which  he  found  would  be  useful. 

The  lease  as  finally  signed  describes  the  prop- 
erty thus: 

Sir  William  More  hath  demised,  granted,  and  to 
ferm  letten,  and  by  these  presents  doth  demise, 
grant,  and  to  ferm  let  unto  the  said  Richard  Farrant 
all  those  his  six  upper  chambers,  lofts,  lodgings, 
or  rooms,  lying  together  within  the  precinct  of  the 
late  dissolved  house  or  priory  of  the  Blackfriars, 
otherwise  called  the  friars  preachers,  in  London; 
which  said  six  upper  chambers,  lofts,  lodgings,  or 
rooms,  were  lately,  amongst  others,  in  the  tenure 
and  occupation  of  the  right  honourable  Sir  William 
Brooke,  Knight,  Lord  Cobham;  and  do  contain  in 
length  from  the  north  end  thereof  to  the  south  end 
of  the  same  one  hundred  fifty  and  six  foot  and  a  half 
of  assize;  whereof  two  of  the  said  six  upper  cham- 
bers, lofts,  lodgings,  or  rooms  in  the  north  end  of  the 
premises,  together  with  the  breadth  of  the  little 
room  under  granted,  do  contain  in  length  forty  *  and 
six  foot  and  a  half,  and  from  the  east  to  the  west  part 
thereof  in  breadth  twenty  and  five  foot  of  assize;2 

1  By  an  error  in  the  manuscript  this  reads  ''fifty";  but  the 
rooms  are  often  described  and  always  as  "forty-six"  feet  in 
length;  moreover,  the  error  is  made  obvious  by  the  rest  of  the 
lease. 

1  The  breadth  is  elsewhere  given  as  twenty-«ix,  and  twenty- 
seven  feet. 


ioo    SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

and  the  four  other  chambers,  or  rooms,  residue  of  the 
said  six  upper  chambers,  do  contain  in  length  one 
hundred  and  ten  foot,  and  in  breadth  from  the  east 
to  the  west  part  thereof  twenty-two  foot  of  assize. 
.  .  .  And  also  .  .  .  the  great  stairs  lately  erected  and 
made  by  the  said  Sir  Henry  Neville  upon  part  of 
the  said  void  ground  and  way. 

It  was  agreed  that  the  lease  should  run  for 
twenty-one  years,  and  that  the  rental  should  be 
£14  per  annum.  But  Sir  William  More,  being  a 
most  careful  and  exacting  landlord,  with  the  in- 
terest of  his  adjacent  lodgings  to  care  for,  inserted 
in  the  lease  the  following  important  proviso,  which 
was  destined  to  make  trouble,  and  ultimately  to 
wreck  the  theatre: 

Provided  also  that  the  said  Richard  Farrant,  his 
executors  or  assigns,  or  any  of  them,  shall  not  in  any 
wise  demise,  let,  grant,  assign,  set  over,  or  by  any 
ways  or  means  put  away  his  or  their  interest  or  term 
of  years,  or  any  part  of  the  same  years,  of  or  in  the 
said  premises  before  letten,  or  any  part,  parcel,  or 
member  thereof  to  any  person,  or  persons,  at  any 
time  hereafter  during  this  present  lease  and  term  of 
twenty-one  years,  without  the  special  license,  con- 
sent, and  agreement  of  the  said  Sir  William  More,  his 
heirs  and  assigns,  first  had,  and  obtained  in  writing 
under  his  and  their  hands  and  seals. 

The  penalty  affixed  to  a  violation  of  this  provision 
was  the  immediate  forfeiture  of  the  lease. 

Apparently  Farrant  entered  into  possession  of 
the  rooms  on  September  29  1  (although  the  formal 

1  The  date  from  which  the  lease  was  made  to  run. 


THE   FIRST   BLACKFRIAFS         toi 

lease  was  not  signed  until  December  20),  and  we 
may  suppose  that  he  at  once  set  about  converting 
the  two  upper  rooms  at  the  north  end  of  the  lodg- 
ings into  a  suitable  theatre.1  Naturally  he  took 
for  his  model  the  halls  at  Court  in  which  the  Chil- 
dren had  been  accustomed  to  act.  First,  we  are 
told,  he  "pulled  down  partitions  to  make  that 
place  apt  for  that  purpose";  next,  he  "spoiled" 
the  windows  —  by  which  is  meant,  no  doubt, 
that  he  stopped  up  the  windows,  for  the  perfor- 
mances were  to  be  by  candle-light.  At  one  end 
of  the  hall  he  erected  a  platform  to  serve  as  a  stage, 
and  in  the  auditorium  he  placed  benches  or  chairs. 
There  was,  presumably,  no  room  for  a  gallery; 
if  such  had  been  erected,  the  indignant  More 
would  certainly  have  mentioned  it  in  his  bill  of 
complaints.2  Chandeliers  over  the  stage,  and, 
possibly,  footlights,  completed  the  necessary  ar- 
rangements. For  these  alterations  Farrant,  we 
are  told,  became  "greatly  indebted,"  and  he  died 
three  or  four  years  later  with  the  debt  still  unpaid. 

1  It  is  usually  said  that  he  converted  the  entire  seven  rooms 
into  his  theatre,  but  that  seems  highly  unlikely.  The  northern 
section  was  46  x  26  feet,  the  southern  section  no  x  22  —  absurd 
dimensions  for  an  auditorium.  Moreover,  that  Farrant  origi- 
nally planned  to  use  only  the  northern  section  is  indicated  by  his 
request  to  be  allowed  to  "pull  down  one  partition  and  so  make 
two  rooms  —  one."  The  portion  not  used  for  the  playhouse  he 
rented;  in  1580,  we  are  told,  he  let  "two  parcels  thereof  to  two 
several  persons." 

*  M.  Feuillerat,  I  think,  is  wrong  in  supposing  that  there  was  a 
gallery.  He  deduces  no  proof  for  his  contention,  and  the  evi- 
dence is  against  him. 


ioa     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

More  complained  that  the  alterations  had  put  the 
rooms  into  a  state  of  "great  ruin,"  which  meant, 
of  course,  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  landlord 
desiring  to  let  them  again  for  residential  pur- 
poses. Just  how  costly  or  how  extensive  the  altera- 
tions were  we  cannot  now  determine;  but  we  may 
reasonably  conclude  that  Farrant  made  the  hall 
not  only  "  commodious  for  his  purpose,"  but  also  at- 
tractive to  the  aristocratic  audiences  he  intended 
to  gather  there  to  see  his  plays. 

To  reach  the  hall,  playgoers  had  to  come  first 
into  Water  Lane,  thence  through  "  a  way  leading 
from  the  said  way  called  Water  Lane"  to  "a  cer- 
tain void  ground"  before  the  building.  Here 
"upon  part  of  the  said  void  ground"  they  found 
a  "great  stairs,  which  said  great  stairs  do  serve 
and  lead  into"  the  upper  rooms  —  or,  as  we  may 
now  say,  Blackfriars  Playhouse.1 

Having  thus  provided  a  playhouse,  Farrant  next 
provided  an  adequate  company  of  boy  actors.  To 
do  this,  he  combined  the  Children  of  Windsor  with 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal,  of  which  Wil- 
liam Hunnis  was  master.  What  arrangement  he 
made  with  Hunnis  we  do  not  know,  but  the  Court 
records  show  that  Farrant  was  regarded  as  the 
manager  of  the  new  organization;  he  is  actually 
referred  to  in  the  payments  as  "Master  of  the 

1  There  must  have  been  two  stairways  leading  to  the  upper 
rooms;  I  have  assumed  that  playgoers  used  Neville's  stairs  to 
reach  the  theatre. 


THE   FIRST   BLACKFRIARS         103 

Children  of  Her  Majesty's  Chapel,"  and  Hunnis's 
official  connection  with  the  Children  is  ignored. 

Farrant  may  have  been  able  to  open  his  play- 
house before  the  close  of  the  year;  or  he  may  have 
first  begun  performances  there  in  the  early  months 
of  1577.  He  would  certainly  be  anxious  to  make  use 
of  the  new  play  he  was  preparing  for  presentation 
at  Court  on  Twelfth  Day,  January  6,  1577. 

For  four  years,  1 576-1 580,  the  playhouse  was 
operated  without  trouble.  Sir  William  More,  how- 
ever, was  not  pleased  at  the  success  with  which 
the  actors  were  meeting.  He  asserted  that  when 
he  made  the  lease  he  was  given  to  understand  that 
the  building  was  to  be  used  "only  for  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel"  —  with,  no 
doubt,  a  few  rehearsals  to  which  certain  persons 
would  be  privately  invited.  But,  now,  to  his  grief, 
he  discovered  that  Farrant  had  "made  it  a  con- 
tinual house  for  plays."  He  asserted  that  the 
playhouse  had  become  offensive  to  the  precinct; 
and  doubtless  some  complaints  had  been  made  to 
him,  as  landlord,  by  the  more  aristocratic  inhabi- 
tants.1 At  any  rate,  he  became  anxious  to  regain 
possession  of  the  building. 

In  the  autumn  of  1580  he  saw  an  opportunity 
to  break  the  lease  and  close  the  playhouse.    Far- 

1  I  suspect  that  the  theatre  gave  greater  offense  to  More  him- 
self than  it  did  to  any  one  else,  for  it  adjoined  his  home,  and  the 
audience  made  use  of  the  private  passage  which  led  from  Water 
Lane  to  his  mansion.  Unquestionably  he  suffered  worse  than 
any  one  else  both  from  the  noise  and  the  crowds. 


104    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

rant  made  the  mistake  of  letting  "two  parcels 
thereof  to  two  severall  persons"  without  first  gain- 
ing the  written  consent  of  More,  and  at  once  More 
"charged  him  with  forfeiture  of  his  lease."  But 
before  More  could  "take  remedy  against  him" 
Farrant  died,  November  30,  1580.  More,  how- 
ever, "entered  upon  the  house,  and  refused  to 
receive  any  rent  but  conditionally." 

By  his  will,  proved  March  1,  1581,  Farrant  left 
the  lease  of  the  Blackfriars  to  his  widow,  Anne 
Farrant.  But  she  had  no  authority  over  the  royal 
choristers,  nor  was  she  qualified  to  manage  a  com- 
pany of  actors,  even  if  she  had  had  the  time  to 
do  so  after  caring  for  her  "ten  little  ones."  What 
use,  if  any,  was  made  of  the  playhouse  during  the 
succeeding  winter  we  do  not  know.  The  widow 
writes  that  she,  "being  a  sole  woman,  unable  of 
herself  to  use  the  said  rooms  to  such  purpose  as 
her  said  husband  late  used  them,  nor  having  any 
need  or  occasion  to  occupy  them  to  such  commod- 
ity as  would  discharge  the  rents  due  for  the  said 
rooms  in  the  bill  alledged,  nor  being  able  to  sus- 
tain, repair,  and  amend  the  said  rooms,"  etc.;1 
the  natural  inference  from  which  is  that  for  a 
time  the  playhouse  stood  unused.  The  widow,  of 
course,  was  anxious  to  sublet  the  building  to  some 
one  who  could  make  use  of  it  as  a  playhouse;  and 
on  December  25,  1580,  she  addressed  a  letter  to 
Sir  William  More  asking  his  written  permission 

1  Wallace,  The  Evolution  of  the  English  Drama,  p.  163. 


THE   FIRST    BLACKFRIARS         105 

to  make  such  a  disposal  of  the  lease.  The  letter 
has  a  pathetic  interest  that  justifies  its  insertion 
here: 

To  the  right  worshipful  Sir  William  More,  Knight,  at 

his  house  near  Guilford,  give  these  with  speed. 
Right  worshipful  Sir: 

After  my  humble  commendations,  and  my  duty 
also  remembered  —  where  it  hath  pleased  your 
worship  to  grant  unto  my  husband  in  his  life  time 
one  lease  of  your  house  within  the  Blackfriars,  for 
the  term  of  twenty-one  years,  with  a  proviso  in  the 
end  thereof  that  he  cannot  neither  let  nor  set  the 
same  without  your  worship's  consent  under  your 
hand  in  writing.  And  now  for  that  it  hath  pleased 
God  to  call  my  said  husband  unto  His  mercy,  hav- 
ing left  behind  him  the  charge  of  ten  small  children 
upon  my  hand,  and  my  husband  besides  greatly 
indebted,  not  having  the  revenue  of  one  groat  any 
way  coming  in,  but  by  making  the  best  I  may  of 
such  things  as  he  hath  left  behind  him,  to  relieve 
my  little  ones.  May  it  therefore  please  your  wor- 
ship, of  your  abundant  clemency  and  accustomed 
goodness,  to  consider  a  poor  widow's  distressed  es- 
tate, and  for  God's  cause  to  comfort  her  with  your 
worship's  warrant  under  your  hand  to  let  and  set 
the  same  to  my  best  comodity  during  the  term  of 
years  in  the  said  lease  contained,  not  doing  any 
waste.  In  all  which  doing,  I  shall  evermore  most 
abundantly  pray  unto  God  for  the  preservation  of 
your  worship's  long  continuance.  From  Grenwich, 
the  twenty-fifth  of  December, 

By  a  poor  and  sorrowful  widow, 

Anne  Farrant.1 

1  Wallace,  The  Evolution  of  the  English  Drama,  p.  153. 


106     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Whether  she  secured  in  writing  the  permission 
she  requested  we  do  not  know.  Four  years  later 
More  said  that  she  did  not.  Possibly,  however,  she 
was  orally  given  to  understand  that  she  might 
transfer  the  lease  to  her  husband's  former  partner 
in  the  enterprise,  William  Hunnis.1  Hunnis  natu- 
rally was  eager  to  make  use  of  the  building  in  prep- 
aration for  the  Christmas  plays  at  Court.  At  some 
date  before  September  19,  he  secured  the  use  of 
the  playhouse  on  a  temporary  agreement  with  the 
widow;  but  in  order  to  avoid  any  difficulty  with 
More,  he  interviewed  the  latter,  and  presented 
a  letter  of  recommendation  from  the  Earl  of 
Leicester.  This  letter  has  been  preserved  among 
Sir  William's  papers : 

Sir  William  More: 

Whereas  my  friend,  Mr.  Hunnis,  this  bearer,  in- 
formeth  me  that  he  hath  of  late  bought  of  Farrant's 
widow  her  lease  of  that  house  in  Blackfriars  which 
you  made  to  her  husband,  deceased,  and  means 
there  to  practice  the  Queen's  Children  of  the  Chapel, 
being  now  in  his  charge,  in  like  sort  as  his  predeces- 
sor did,  for  the  better  training  them  to  do  Her  Maj- 
esty's service;  he  is  now  a  suitor  to  me  to  recom- 
mend him  to  your  good  favour  —  which  I  do  very 
heartily,  as  one  that  I  wish  right  well  unto,  and  will 
give  you  thanks  for  any  continuance  or  friendship 
you  shall  show  him  for  the  furtherance  of  this  his 
honest  request.  And  thus,  with  my  hearty  commen- 

1  More  had  "refused  to  accept  any  rent  but  conditionally." 
Probably  he  refused  written  consent  to  the  sublease  for  the 
same  reason. 


THE   FIRST   BLACKFRIARS         107 

dations,  I  wish  you  right  heartily  well  to  fare.   From 
the  Court,  this  nineteenth  of  September,  1 581. 
Your  very  friend, 

R.  Leicester.1 

The  result  of  this  interview  we  do  not  know. 
But  on  December  20  following,  the  widow  made 
a  formal  lease  of  the  property  to  William  Hunnis 
and  John  Newman,  at  a  rental  of  £20  135.  qd.  a 
year,  an  increase  of  £6  13J.  4^.  over  the  rental 
she  had  to  pay  More.  She  required  of  them  a 
bond  of  £100  to  guarantee  their  performance  of 
all  the  covenants  of  the  lease.  Thereupon  the 
theatre  under  Hunnis  and  Newman  resumed  its 
career — if,  indeed,  this  had  ever  been  seriously 
interrupted. 

In  the  course  of  time,  More's  anxiety  to  recover 
possession  of  the  hall  seems  to  have  increased. 
The  quarterly  payments  were  not  promptly  met 
by  the  widow,  and  the  repairs  on  the  building  were 
not  made  to  his  satisfaction.  Probably  through 
fear  of  the  increasing  dissatisfaction  on  the  part 
of  More,  Hunnis  and  Newman  transferred  their 
lease,  in  1583,  to  a  young  Welsh  scrivener,  Henry 
Evans,  who  had  become  interested  in  dramatic 
affairs.  This  transfer  of  the  lease  without  More's 
written  consent  was  a  second  clear  breach  of  the 
original  contract,  and  it  gave  More  exactly  the 
opportunity  he  sought.  Accordingly,  he  declared 
the  original  lease  to  Farrant  void,  and  made  a 

1  Wallace,  The  Evolution  of  the  English  Drama,  p.  154. 


108     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

new  lease  of  the  house  "unto  his  own  man,  Thomas 
Smallpiece,  to  try  the  said  Evans  his  right."  But 
Evans,  being  a  lawyer,  knew  how  to  take  care  of 
himself.  He  "demurred  in  law,"  and  "kept  the 
same  in  his  hands  with  long  delays." 

The  widow,  alarmed  at  the  prospect  of  losing 
her  lease,  brought  suit,  in  December,  1583,  against 
Hunnis  and  Newman  separately  for  the  forfeiture 
of  their  several  bonds  of  £100,  contending  that 
they  had  not  paid  promptly  according  to  their 
agreement,  and  had  not  kept  the  building  in 
proper  repair.  Hunnis  and  Newman  separately 
brought  suit  in  the  Court  of  Requests  for  relief 
against  the  widow's  suits.  Meanwhile  More  was 
demanding  judgment  against  Evans.  Hunnis,  it 
seems,  carried  his  troubles  to  the  Court  and  there 
sought  help.  Queen  Elizabeth  could  take  no 
direct  action,  because  Sir  William  More  was  a 
good  friend  of  hers,  who  had  entertained  her  in 
his  home.  But  she  might  enlist  the  aid  of  one  of 
her  noblemen  who  were  interested  in  the  drama. 
However  this  was,  the  young  Earl  of  Oxford,  him  . 
self  a  playwright  and  the  patron  of  a  troupe  of 
boy-actors,  came  to  the  rescue  of  the  theatre.  He 
bought  the  lease  of  the  building  from  Evans,  and 
undertook  to  reorganize  its  affairs.  To  Hunnis's 
twelve  Children  of  the  Chapel  he  added  the  Chil- 
dren of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  making  thus  a  com- 
pany of  adequate  size.  He  retained  Hunnis,  no 
doubt,  as  one  of  the  trainers  of  the  Boys,  and  he 


THE   FIRST   BLACKFRIARS         109 

kept  Evans  as  manager  of  the  troupe.  Moreover, 
shortly  after  the  purchase,  probably  in  June,  1583, 
he  made  a  free  gift  of  the  lease  to  his  private  sec- 
retary, John  Lyly,  a  young  man  who  had  recently 
won  fame  with  the  first  English  novel,  Euphues. 
The  object  of  this,  like  the  preceding  transfers  of 
title,  it  seems,  was  to  put  as  many  legal  blocks  in 
the  path  of  Sir  William  More  as  possible.  More 
realized  this,  and  complained  specifically  that 
"the  title  was  posted  from  one  to  another";  yet 
he  had  firmly  made  up  his  mind  to  recover  the 
property,  and  in  spite  of  Oxford's  interference, 
he  instructed  his  "learned  council"  to  "demand 
judgment." 

Meanwhile  the  dramatic  organization  at  Black- 
friars  continued  under  the  direction  of  Hunnis, 
Evans,  and  Lyly,  with  the  Earl  of  Oxford  as 
patron.  Not  only  was  Lyly  the  proprietor  of  the 
theatre,  but  he  attempted  to  supply  it  with  the 
necessary  plays.  He  had  already  shown  his  power 
to  tell  in  effective  prose  a  pleasing  love  romance. 
That  power  he  now  turned  to  the  production  of 
his  first  play,  written  in  haste  for  the  Christ- 
mas festivities.  The  play,  Alexander  and  Cam- 
paspe,  was  presented  before  Her  Majesty  on 
January  1,  1584,  and  at  Blackfriars,  with  great 
applause.  Lyly's  second  play,  Sapho  and  Phao, 
was  produced  at  Court  on  March  3,  follow- 
ing, and  also  at  Blackfriars  before  the  general 
public. 


no     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

But  at  the  Easter  term,  1584,  Sir  William  More 
got  judgment  in  his  favor.  The  widow  begged  Sir 
Francis  Walsingham  to  intercede  in  her  behalf, 
declaring  that  the  loss  of  the  lease  "might  be  her 
utter  undoing."1  Walsingham  sent  the  letter  to 
More,  and  apparently  urged  a  consideration  of  her 
case.  More,  however,  refused  to  yield.  He  ban- 
ished Lyly,  Hunnis,  Evans,  and  the  Children 
from  the  "great  upper  hall,"  and  reconverted  the 
building  into  tenements. 

1  The  letter  is  printed  in  full  by  Mr.  Wallace  in  The  Evolution 
of  the  English  Drama,  p.  158.  Mr.  Wallace,  however,  misdates 
it.  It  was  not  written  until  after  More  had  "recovered  it  [the 
lease]  against  Evans." 


CHAPTER  VI 
ST.  PAUL'S 

AS  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter,  not  only 
were  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal  and 
of  Windsor  called  upon  to  entertain  the  Queen 
with  dramatic  performances,  but  the  Children  of 
St.  Paul's  were  also  expected  to  amuse  their  sov- 
ereign on  occasion.  And  following  the  example 
of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  and  of  Windsor  in 
giving  performances  before  the  public  in  Black- 
friars,  the  Paul's  Boys  soon  began  to  give  such 
performances  in  a  building  near  the  Cathedral.1 
The  building  so  employed  was  doubtless  one  of 
the  structures  owned  by  the  Church.  Burbage 
and  Heminges  refer  to  it  as  "the  said  house  near 
St.  Paul's  Church."  2  Richard  Flecknoe,  in  A 
Discourse  of  the  English  Stage  (1664),  places  it 
"behind  the  Convocation-house  in  Paul's";3  and 
Howes,  in  his  continuation  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1), 
says  that  it  was  the  "  singing-school"  of  the  Cathe- 
dral.4   That  the  auditorium  was  small  we  may 

1  Murray,  English  Dramatic  Companies,  i,  325,  erroneously 
says:  "Their  public  place  was,  probably,  from  the  first,  the 
courtyard  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral." 

2  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  95. 
1  That  is,  in  or  near  Pater  Xoster  Row. 

*  Annates,  or  A  Generall  Chronicle  of  England,  163 1,  signature 
iiii  1,  verso. 


ii2     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

well  believe.  So  was  the  stage.  Certain  speakers 
in  the  Induction  to  What  You  Will,  acted  at  Paul's 
in  1600,  say:  "Let's  place  ourselves  within  the 
curtains,  for,  good  faith,  the  stage  is  so  very  little, 
we  shall  wrong  the  general  eye  else  very  much." 
Both  Fleay  and  Lawrence l  contend  that  the  build- 
ing was  "  round,  like  the  Globe,"  and  as  evidence 
they  cite  the  Prologue  to  Marston's  Antonio's  Re- 
venge, acted  at  Paul's  in  1600,  in  which  the  phrases 
"within  this  round"  and  "within  this  ring"  are  ap- 
plied to  the  theatre.  The  phrases,  however,  may 
have  reference  merely  to  the  circular  disposition 
of  the  benches  about  the  stage.  That  high  prices 
of  admission  to  the  little  theatre  were  charged 
we  learn  from  a  marginal  note  in  Pappe  with  an 
Hatchet  (1589),  which  states  that  if  a  tragedy  "be 
showed  at  Paul's,  it  will  cost  you  four  pence;  at 
the  Theatre  two  pence."  2  The  Children,  indeed, 
catered  to  a  very  select  public.  Persons  who  went 
thither  were  gentle  by  birth  and  by  behavior  as 
well;  and  playwrights,  we  are  told,  could  always 
feel  sure  there  of  the  "calm  attention  of  a  choice 
audience."  3  Lyly,  in  the  Prologue  to  Midas,  acted 
at  Paul's  in  1589,  says:  "Only  this  doth  encourage 
us,  that  presenting  our  studies  before  Gentlemen, 

1  F.  G.  Fleay,  A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama, 
II,  76;  W.  J.  Lawrence,  The  Elizabethan  Playhouse,  p.  17. 

2  R.  W.  Bond,  The  Complete  Works  of  John  Lyly,  in,  408. 
Higher  prices  of  admission  were  charged  to  all  the  private  play- 
houses. 

*  John  Marston,  Antonio's  Revenge,  acted  at  Paul's  in  1600. 


ST.  PAUL'S  113 

though  they  receive  an  inward  dislike,  we  shall  not 
be  hissed  with  an  open  disgrace."  Things  were 
quite  otherwise  in  the  public  theatres  of  Shoreditch 
and  the  Bankside. 

Under  the  direction  of  their  master,  Sebastian 
Westcott,  the  Boys  acted  before  the  public  at  least 
as  early  as  1578,1  for  in  December  of  that  year  the 
Privy  Council  ordered  the  Lord  Mayor  to  permit 
them  to  "exercise  plays"  within  the  city;2  and 
Stephen  Gosson,  in  his  Plays  Confuted,  written 
soon  afterwards,  mentions  Cupid  and  Psyche  as 
having  been  recently  "plaid  at  Paules." 

Westcott  died  in  1582,  and  was  succeeded  by 
Thomas  Gyles.  Shortly  after  this  we  find  the 
Children  of  Paul's  acting  publicly  with  the  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chapel  Royal  at  the  little  theatre  in 
Blackfriars.  For  them  John  Lyly  wrote  his  two 
earliest  plays,  Campaspe  and  Sapho  and  Phao,  as 
the  title-pages  clearly  state.  But  their  stay  at 
Blackfriars  was  short.  When  in  1584  Sir  William 
More  closed  up  the  theatre  there,  they  fell  back 
upon  their  singing-school  as  the  place  for  their 
public  performances. 

At  the  same  time  the  Queen  became  greatly  in- 
terested in  promoting  their  dramatic  activities. 
To  their  master,  Thomas  Gyles,  she  issued,  in 

1  There  is  a  record  of  a  play  by  the  Paul's  Boys  in  1527  before 
ambassadors  from  France,  dealing  with  the  heretic  Luther;  but 
exactly  when  they  began  to  give  public  performances  for  money 
we  do  not  know. 

2  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  432. 


ii4     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

April,  1585,  a  special  commission  "to  take  up  apt 
and  meet  children"  wherever  he  could  find  them. 
It  was  customary  for  the  Queen  to  issue  such  a 
commission  to  the  masters  of  her  two  private  chap- 
els, but  never  before,  or  afterwards,  had  this  power 
to  impress  children  been  conferred  upon  a  person 
not  directly  connected  with  the  royal  choristers. 
Its  issuance  to  Gyles  in  1585  clearly  indicates  the 
Queen's  interest  in  the  Paul's  Boys  as  actors,  and 
her  expectation  of  being  frequently  entertained 
by  them.  And  to  promote  her  plans  still  further, 
she  appointed  the  successful  playwright  John  Lyly 
as  their  vice-master,  with  the  understanding,  no 
doubt,  that  he  was  to  keep  them  —  and  her  — 
supplied  with  plays.  This  he  did,  for  all  his  come- 
dies, except  the  two  just  mentioned,  were  written 
for  the  Cathedral  Children,  and  were  acted  by  them 
at  Court,  and  in  their  little  theatre  "behind  the 
Convocation  House." 

Unfortunately  under  Lyly's  leadership  the  Boys 
became  involved  in  the  bitter  Martin  Marprelate 
controversy,  for  which  they  were  suppressed  near 
the  end  of  1590.  The  printer  of  Lyly's  Endimion, 
in  1591,  says  to  the  reader:  "Since  the  plays  in 
Paul's  were  dissolved,  there  are  certain  comedies 
come  to  my  hands  by  chance,  which  were  pre- 
sented before  Her  Majesty  at  several  times  by  the 
Children  of  Paul's." 

Exactly  how  long  the  Children  were  restrained  it 
is  hard  to  determine.  In  1596  Thomas  Nash,  in  Have 


ST.  PAUL'S  115 

With  You  to  Saffron  Walden,  expressed  a  desire  to 
see  "the  plays  at  Paul's  up  again."  Mr.  Wallace 
thinks  they  may  have  been  allowed  "up  again"  in 
1598; l  Fleay,  in  1599  or  1600;2  the  evidence,  how- 
ever, points,  I  think,  to  the  spring  or  early  summer 
of  1600.  The  Children  began,  naturally,  with  old 
plays,  "musty  fopperies  of  antiquity";  the  first, 
or  one  of  the  first,  new  plays  they  presented  was 
Marston's  Jack  Drum's  Entertainment,  the  date  of 
which  can  be  determined  within  narrow  limits.  Ref- 
erences to  Kempe's  Morris,  which  was  danced  in 
February,  1600,  as  being  still  a  common  topic  of 
conversation,  and  the  entry  of  the  play  in  the  Sta- 
tioners' Registers  on  September  8,  1600,  point  to 
the  spring  or  early  summer  of  1600  as  the  date  of 
composition.  This  makes  very  significant  the  fol- 
lowing passage  in  the  play  referring  to  the  Paul's 
Boys  as  just  beginning  to  act  again  after  their  long 
inhibition : 

Sir  Ed.   I  saw  the  Children  of  Paul's  last  night, 
And  troth  they  pleas'd  me  pretty,  pretty  well. 
The  Apes  in  time  will  do  it  handsomely. 

Plan.   S 'faith,  I  like  the  audience  that  frequenteth  there 
With  much  applause.  A  man  shall  not  be  choak't 
With  the  stench  of  garlic,  nor  be  pasted 
To  the  barmy  jacket  of  a  beer-brewer. 

Bra.  Ju.   'T  is  a  good,  gentle  audience;  and  I  hope  the 
Boys 
Will  come  one  day  into  the  Court  of  Requests. 

1   The  Children  of  the  Chapel,  p.  153. 

*  A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  p.  152. 


n6     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES     * 

Shortly  after  this  the  Boys  were  indeed  called 
"into  the  Court  of  Requests,"  for  on  New  Year's 
Day,  1601,  they  were  summoned  to  present  a  play 
before  Her  Majesty. 

Their  master  now  was  Edward  Pierce,  who  had 
succeeded  Thomas  Gyles.  In  1605  the  experi- 
enced Edward  Kirkham,  driven  from  the  manage- 
ment of  the  Blackfriars  Theatre,  became  an  assis- 
tant to  Pierce  in  the  management  of  Paul's.  In 
this  capacity  we  find  him  in  1606  receiving  the 
payment  for  the  two  performances  of  the  Boys  at 
Court  that  year.1 

Among  the  playwrights  engaged  by  Pierce  to 
write  for  Paul's  were  Marston,  Middleton,  Chap- 
man, Dekker,  Webster,  and  Beaumont;  and,  as  a 
result,  some  of  the  most  interesting  dramas  of  the 
period  were  first  acted  on  the  small  stage  of  the 
singing-school.  Details  in  the  history  of  the  Chil- 
dren, however,  are  few.  We  find  an  occasional 
notice  of  their  appearance  at  Court,  but  our  record 
of  them  is  mainly  secured  from  the  title-pages  of 
their  plays. 

The  last  notice  of  a  performance  by  them  is 
as  follows:  "On  the  30th  of  July,  1606,  the 
youths  of  Paul's,  commonly  called  the  Children 
of  Paul's,  played  before  the  two  Kings  [of  Eng- 
land and  of  Denmark]  a  play  called  Abuses,  con- 
taining both  a  comedy  and  a  tragedy,  at  which 

1  Cunningham,  Extracts  from  the  Accounts  of  the  Revels,  p. 

XXXVIII. 


ST.  PAUL'S  117 

the  Kings  seemed  to  take  great  delight  and  be 
much  pleased."  ■ 

The  reason  why  the  Children  ceased  to  act  is 
made  clear  in  the  lawsuit  of  Keysar  v.  Burbage 
et  al.,  recently  discovered  and  printed  by  Mr. 
Wallace.2  From  this  we  learn  that  when  Rosse- 
ter  became  manager  of  the  Children  of  the  Queen's 
Revels  at  the  private  playhouse  of  Whitefriars 
in  1609,  he  undertook  to  increase  his  profits  by 
securing  a  monopoly  both  of  child-acting  and  of 
private  theatres.  Blackfriars  had  been  deserted, 
and  the  only  other  private  theatre  then  in  exis- 
tence was  Paul's.  So  Rosseter  agreed  to  pay 
Pierce  a  dead  rent  of  £20  a  year  to  keep  the  Paul's 
playhouse  closed : 

One  Mr.  Rosseter,  a  partner  of  the  said  complain- 
ant, dealt  for  and  compounded  with  the  said  Mr. 
Pierce  to  the  only  benefit  of  him,  the  said  Mr.  Rosse- 
ter, the  now  complainant,  the  rest  of  their  partners 
and  Company  [at  the  Whitefriars]  .  .  .  that  thereby 
they  might  .  .  .  advance  their  gains  and  profit  to 
be  had  and  made  in  their  said  house  in  the  White- 
friars, that  there  might  be  a  cessation  of  playing  and 
plays  to  be  acted  in  the  said  house  near  St.  Paul's 
Church  aforesaid,  for  which  the  said  Rosseter  com- 
pounded with  the  said  Pierce  to  give  him  the  said 
Pierce  twenty  pounds  per  annum.* 

In  this  attempt  to  secure  a  monopoly  in  pri- 
vate playhouses  Rosseter  was  foiled  by  the  com- 

1  Nichols,  The  Progresses  of  James,  iv,  1073. 

*  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  80.        8  Ibid.,  p.  95. 


n8     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

ing  of  Shakespeare's  troupe  to  the  Blackfriars;  but 
the  King's  Men  readily  agreed  to  join  in  the  pay- 
ment of  the  dead  rent  to  Pierce,  for  it  was  to  their 
advantage  also  to  eliminate  competition. 

The  agreement  which  Rosseter  secured  from 
Pierce  was  binding  "for  one  whole  year";  whether 
it  was  renewed  we  do  not  know,  but  the  Children 
never  again  acted  in  "their  house  near  St.  Paul's 
Church." 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  BANKSIDE  AND  THE  BEAR  GARDEN 

FROM  time  out  of  mind  the  suburb  of  London 
known  as  "the  Bankside"  —  the  term  was 
loosely  applied  to  all  the  region  south  of  the  river 
and  west  of  the  bridge  —  had  been  identified  with 
sports  and  pastimes.  On  Sundays,  holidays,  and 
other  festive  occasions,  the  citizens,  their  wives, 
and  their  apprentices  were  accustomed  to  seek 
outdoor  entertainment  across  the  river,  going 
thither  in  boats  (of  which  there  was  an  incredible 
number,  converting  "the  silver  sliding  Thames" 
almost  into  a  Venetian  Grand  Canal),  or  strolling 
on  foot  over  old  London  Bridge.  On  the  Bankside 
the  visitors  could  find  maypoles  for  dancing,  butts 
for  the  practice  of  archery,  and  broad  fields  for 
athletic  games;  or,  if  so  disposed,  they  could 
visit  bull-baitings,  bear-baitings,  fairs,  stage-plays, 
shows,  motions,  and  other  amusements  of  a  simi- 
lar sort. 

Not  all  the  attractions  of  the  Bankside,  however, 
were  so  innocent.  For  here,  in  a  long  row  border- 
ing the  river's  edge,  were  situated  the  famous  stews 
of  the  city,  licensed  by  authority  of  the  Bishop  of 
Winchester;  and  along  with  the  stews,  of  course, 
such  places  as  thrive  in  a  district  devoted  to  vice 


no     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

—  houses  for  gambling,  for  coney-catching,  and  for 
evil  practices  of  various  sorts.  The  less  said  of  this 
feature  of  the  Bankside  the  better. 

More  needs  to  be  said  of  the  bull-  and  bear- 
baiting,  which  probably  constituted  the  chief 
amusement  of  the  crowds  from  the  city,  and 
which  was  later  closely  associated  with  the  drama 
and  with  playhouses.  This  sport,  now  surviving 
in  the  bull-fights  of  Spain  and  of  certain  Spanish- 
American  countries,  was  in  former  times  one  of 
the  most  popular  species  of  entertainment  culti- 
vated by  the  English.  Even  so  early  as  1174, 
William  Fitz-Stephen ,  in  his  Descriptio  Nobilis- 
simce  Ciuitatis  Londonice,  under  the  heading  De 
Ludis,  records  that  the  London  citizens  diverted 
themselves  on  holiday  occasions  with  the  baiting 
of  beasts,  when  "strong  horn-goring  bulls,  or 
immense  bears,  contend  fiercely  with  dogs  that 
are  pitted  against  them."  x  In  some  towns  the 
law  required  that  bulls  intended  for  the  butcher- 
shop  should  first  be  baited  for  the  amusement  of 
the  public  before  being  led  to  the  slaughter-house. 
Erasmus  speaks  of  the  "many  herds  of  bears" 
which  he  saw  in  England  "maintained  for  the  pur- 
pose of  baiting."  The  baiting  was  accomplished 
by  tying  the  bulls  or  bears  to  stakes,  or  when  pos- 
sible releasing  them  in  an  amphitheatre,  and  pit- 
ting against  them  bull-dogs,  bred   through  cen- 

1  "Pingues  tauri  cornupetas,  seu  vrsi  immanes,  cum  obiectis 
depugnant  canibus." 


~    >- 


V. >    .3     U 

y.   -- 

*~     —     2 

~    g,«j 

=    &m 

■--'■£ 

I'i 


w  £ 
y  3 


BANKSIDE   AND   BEAR   GARDEN     121 

turies  for  strength  and  ferocity.  Occasionally- 
other  animals,  as  ponies  and  apes,  were  brought 
into  the  fight,  and  the  sport  was  varied  in  miscel- 
laneous ways.  Some  of  the  animals,  by  unusual 
courage  or  success,  endeared  themselves  to  the 
heart  of  the  sporting  public.  Harry  Hunks, 
George  Stone,  and  Sacarson  were  famous  bears  in 
Shakespeare's  time;  and  the  names  of  many  of 
the  "game  bulls"  and  "mastiff  dogs"  became 
household  words  throughout  London. 

The  home  of  this  popular  sport  was  the  Bank- 
side.  The  earliest  extant  map  of  Southwark,1 
drawn  about  1542,  shows  in  the  very  centre  of 
High  Street,  just  opposite  London  Bridge,  a  cir- 
cular amphitheatre  marked  "The  Bull  Ring"; 
and  doubtless  there  were  other  places  along  the 
river  devoted  to  the  same  purpose.  The  baiting 
of  bears  was  more  closely  identified  with  the 
Manor  of  Paris  Garden,2  that  section  of  the  Bank 
lying  to  the  west  of  the  Clink,  over  towards  the 
marshes  of  Lambeth.  The  association  of  bear- 
baiting  with  this  particular  section  was  probably 
due  to  the  fact  that  in  early  days  the  butchers  of 
London  used  a  part  of  the  Manor  of  Paris  Gar- 

1  The  map  is  reproduced  in  facsimile  by  Rendle  as  a  frontis- 
piece to  Old  Southwark  and  its  People. 

*  Or  Parish  Garden,  possibly  the  more  correct  form.  For  the 
early  history  of  the  Manor  see  William  Bray,  The  History  and 
Antiquities  of  the  County  of  Surrey,  ill,  530;  Wallace,  in  Englische 
Studien  (191 1),  xliii,  341,  note  3;  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres, 
P.  125. 


122     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

den  for  the  disposal  of  their  offal,1  and  the  entrails 
and  other  refuse  from  the  slaughtered  beasts 
furnished  cheap  and  abundant  food  for  the  bears 
and  dogs.  The  Earl  of  Manchester  wrote  to  the 
Lord  Mayor  and  the  Common  Council,  in  1664, 
that  he  had  been  informed  by  the  master  of  His 
Majesty's  Game  of  Bears  and  Bulls,  and  others, 
that  "the  Butcher's  Company  had  formerly 
caused  all  their  offal  in  Eastcheap  and  Newgate 
Market  to  be  conveyed  by  the  beadle  of  the  Com- 
pany unto  two  barrow  houses,  conveniently  placed 
on  the  river  side,  for  the  provision  and  feeding  of 
the  King's  Game  of  Bears." 

At  first,  apparently,  the  baiting  of  bears  was 
held  in  open  places,2  with  the  bear  tied  to  a  stake 
and  the  spectators  crowding  around,  or  at  best 
standing  on  temporary  scaffolds.  But  later,  per- 
manent amphitheatres  were  provided.  In  Braun 
and  Hogenberg's  Map  of  London,  drawn  between 
1554  and  1558,  and  printed  in  1572,  we  find  two 
well-appointed  amphitheatres,  with  stables  and 
kennels  attached,  labeled  respectively  "The  Bear 

1  Blount,  in  his  Glossographia  (1681),  p.  473,  says  of  Pans 
Garden:  "So  called  from  Robert  de  Paris,  who  had  a  house  and 
garden  there  in  Richard  II. 's  time;  who  by  proclamation,  or- 
dained that  the  butchers  of  London  should  buy  that  garden  for 
receipt  of  their  garbage  and  entrails  of  beasts,  to  the  end  the 
city  might  not  be  annoyed  thereby." 

2  See  Gilpin's  Life  of  Cranmer  for  a  description  of  a  bear-bait- 
ing before  the  King  held  on  or  near  the  river's  edge.  See  also  the 
proclamation  of  Henry  VIII  in  1546  against  the  stews,  which  im- 
plies the  non-existence  of  regular  amphitheatres. 


o   2 


SI 
<  a 

p 


Is 


Q 
<  I 


124     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Baiting"  and  "The  Bull  Baiting."  When  these 
amphitheatres  were  erected  we  do  not  know,  but 
probably  they  do  not  antedate  by  much  the  middle 
of  the  century.1 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  at  this  time  neither  "The 
Bull  Baiting"  nor  "The  Bear  Baiting"  is  in  the 
Manor  of  Paris  Garden,  but  close  by  in  the  Liberty 
of  the  Clink.  Yet  the  name  "Paris  Garden"  con- 
tinued to  be  used  of  the  animal-baiting  place  for 
a  century  and  more.  Possibly  the  identification 
of  bear-baiting  with  Paris  Garden  was  of  such 
long  standing  that  Londoners  could  not  readily 
adjust  themselves  to  the  change;  they  at  first 
confused  the  terms  "Bear  Garden"  and  "Paris 
Garden,"  and  later  extended  the  term  "Paris 
Garden"  to  include  that  section  of  the  Clink  de- 
voted to  the  baiting  of  animals. 

The  two  amphitheatres,  it  seems,  were  used 
until  1583,  when  a  serious  catastrophe  put  an  end 
to  one  if  not  both  of  them.  Stow,  in  his  Annals, 
gives  the  following  account  of  the  accident : 

The  same  thirteenth  day  of  January,  being  Sun- 
day, about  four  of  the  clock  in  the  afternoon,  the 

1  Sir  Sidney  Lee  (Shakespeare's  England,  11,  428)  says  that 
one  of  the  amphitheatres  was  erected  in  1526.  I  do  not  know  his 
authority;  he  was  apparently  misled  by  one  of  Rendle's  state- 
ments. Neither  of  the  amphitheatres  is  shown  in  Wyngaerde's 
careful  Map  of  London  made  about  1 530-1 540;  possibly  they 
are  referred  to  in  the  Diary  of  Henry  Machyn  under  the  date  of 
May  26,  1554.  The  old  "Bull  Ring"  in  High  Street  had  then 
disappeared,  and  the  baiting  of  bulls  was  henceforth  more  or  less 
closely  associated,  as  was  natural,  with  the  baiting  of  bears. 


BANKSIDE   AND   BEAR   GARDEN     125 

old  and  underpropped  scaffolds  round  about  the 
Bear  Garden,  commonly  called  Paris  Garden,  on 
the  south  side  of  the  river  of  Thamis  over  against 
the  city  of  London,  overcharged  with  people,  fell 
suddenly  down,  whereby  to  the  number  of  eight  per- 
sons, men  and  women,  were  slain,  and  many  others 
sore  hurt  and  bruised  to  the  shortening  of  their  lives.1 

Stubbes,  the  Puritan,  writes  in  his  more  height- 
ened style: 

Upon  the  13  day  of  January  last,  being  the  Saboth 
day,  Anno  1583,  the  people,  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren, both  young  and  old,  an  infinite  number,  flock- 
ing to  those  infamous  places  where  these  wicked 
exercises  are  usually  practised  (for  they  have  their 
courts,  gardens,  and  yards  for  the  same  purpose), 
when  they  were  all  come  together  and  mounted  aloft 
upon  their  scaffolds  and  galleries,  and  in  the  midst 
of  all  their  jolity  and  pastime,  all  the  whole  building 
(not  one  stick  standing)  fell  down  with  a  most  won- 
derful and  fearful  confusion.  So  that  either  two  or 
three  hundred  men,  women,  and  children  (by  esti- 
mation), whereof  seven  were  killed  dead,  some  were 
wounded,  some  lamed,  and  otherwise  bruised  and 
crushed  almost  to  death.  Some  had  their  brains 
dashed  out,  some  their  heads  all  to-squashed,  some 
their  legs  broken,  some  their  arms,  some  their  backs, 
some  their  shoulders,  some  one  hurt,  some  another.2 

The  building,  which  the  Reverend  John  Field 
described  as  "old  and  rotten,"  3  was  a  complete 

1  Stow,  Annals  (ed.  1631),  p.  696. 

'  Philip  Stubbes,  The  Anatomie  of  Abuses  (ed.  Furnivall),p.  179. 

*  A  Godly  Exhortation  by  Occasion  of  the  Late  Judgement  of 
God,  Shewed  at  Paris-Garden  (London,  1583).  Another  account 
of  the  disaster  may  be  found  in  Vaughan's  Golden  Grove  (1600). 


126     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

ruin;  "not  a  stick  was  left  so  high  as  the  bear 
was  fastened  to."  The  Puritan  preachers  loudly 
denounced  \he  unholy  spectacles,  pointing  to 
the  catastrophe  as  a  clear  warning  from  the 
Almighty;  and  the  city  authorities  earnestly  be- 
sought the  Privy  Council  to  put  an  end  to  such 
performances.  Yet  the  owners  of  the  building  set 
to  work  at  once,  and  soon  had  erected  a  new 
house,  stronger  and  larger  and  more  pretentious 
than  before.  The  Lord  Mayor,  in  some  indigna- 
tion, wrote  to  the  Privy  Council  on  July  3,  1583, 
that  "  the  scaffolds  are  new  builded,  and  the  mul- 
titudes on  the  Saboth  day  called  together  in  most 
excessive  number."  1 

The  New  Bear  Garden,  octagonal  in  form,  was 
probably  modeled  after  the  playhouses  in  Shore- 
ditch,  and  made  in  all  respects  superior  to  the  old 
amphitheatre  which  it  supplanted.2  We  find  that 
it  was  reckoned  among  the  sights  of  the  city,  and 
was  exhibited  to  distinguished  foreign  visitors. 
For  example,  when  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  undertook 
to  entertain  the  French  Ambassador,  he  carried 
him  to  view  the  monuments  in  Westminster  Abbey 
and  to  see  the  new  Bear  Garden. 

A  picture  of  the  building  is  to  be  seen  in  the  Hon- 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  65. 

2  What  became  of  the  other  amphitheatre  labeled  "The  Bull 
Baiting"  I  do  not  know.  Stow,  in  his  Survey,  1598,  says:  "Now 
to  return  to  the  west  bank,  there  be  two  bear  gardens,  the  old 
and  new  places,  wherein  be  kept  bears,  bulls,  and  other  beasts 
to  be  baited." 


BANKSIDE   AND   BEAR   GARDEN     127 


'fheBear  £arc[nt 


THE  BEAR   GARDEN 

From  Visscher's  Map  of  London,  published  in  1616,  but  representing  the  city 
as  it  was  several  years  earlier. 

dius  View  of  London,  1610  (see  page  149),  and  in 
the  small  inset  views  from  the  title-pages  of  Hol- 
land's Heroologia,    1620,   and   Baker's  Chronicle, 


ii8     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

1643  (see  page  147),  all  three  of  which  probably  go 
back  to  a  view  of  London  made  between  1587  and 
1597,  and  now  lost.  Another  representation  of 
the  structure  is  to  be  seen  in  the  Delaram  portrait 
of  King  James,  along  with  the  Rose  and  the  Globe 
(see  opposite  page  246).  The  best  representation 
of  the  building,  however,  is  in  Visscher's  View  of 
London  (see  page  127),  printed  in  1616,  but  drawn 
several  years  earlier.1 

Although  we  are  not  directly  concerned  with 
the  history  of  the  Bear  Garden,2  a  few  descrip- 
tions of  "the  royal  game  of  bears,  bulls,  and  dogs" 
drawn  from  contemporary  sources  will  be  of  in- 
terest and  of  specific  value  for  the  discussion  of 
the  Hope  Playhouse  —  itself  both  a  bear  garden 
and  a  theatre. 

Robert  Laneham,  in  his  Description  of  the  Enter- 
tainment at  Kenilworth  (1575),  writes  thus  of  a 
baiting  of  bears  before  the  Queen : 

Well,  syr,  the  Bearz  wear  brought  foorth  intoo  the 
Coourt,  the  dogs  set  too  them.  ...  It  was  a  Sport 
very  pleazaunt  of  theez  beastz;  to  see  the  bear  with 
his  pink  nyez  leering  after  hiz  enemiez  approoch,  the 
nimbleness  &  wayt  of  ye  dog  to  take  his  auauntage, 
and  the  fors  &  experiens  of  the  bear  agayn  to  auoyd 

1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  these  various  maps  and  views  see 
pages  146,  248,  and  328.  Norden's  map  of  1594  (see  page  147) 
merely  indicates  the  site  of  the  building. 

8  For  such  a  history  the  reader  is  referred  to  Ordish,  Early 
London  Theatres;  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  IX,  and  Henslowe 
Papers;  Young,  The  History  of  Dulwich  College;  Rendle,  The 
Bankside,  and  The  Playhouses  at  Bankside. 


BANKSIDE   AND   BEAR   GARDEN     129 

the  assauts:  if  he  war  bitten  in  one  place,  how  he 
woold  pynch  in  an  oother  to  get  free:  that  if  he  wear 
taken  onez,  then  what  shyft,  with  byting,  with  claw- 
ing, with  rooring,  tossing,  &  tumbling  he  woold 
woork  to  wynd  hym  self  from  them:  and  when  he 
waz  lose,  to  shake  his  earz  tywse  or  thryse,  wyth 
the  blud  and  the  slauer  aboout  his  fiznomy,  waz  a 
matter  of  a  goodly  releef. 

John  Houghton,  in  his  Collection  for  Improve- 
ment of  Husbandry  and  Trade,1  gives  a  vivid  ac- 
count of  the  baiting  of  the  bull.   He  says: 

The  bull  takes  great  care  to  watch  his  enemy, 
which  is  a  mastiff  dog  (commonly  used  to  the  sport) 
with  a  short  nose  that  his  teeth  may  take  the  better 
hold;  this  dog,  if  right,  will  creep  upon  his  belly  that 
he  may,  if  possible,  get  the  bull  by  the  nose;  which 
the  bull  as  carefully  strives  to  defend  by  laying  it 
close  to  the  ground,  where  his  horns  are  also  ready 
to  do  what  in  them  lies  to  toss  the  dog;  and  this  is  the 
true  sport.  But  if  more  dogs  than  one  come  at  once, 
or  they  are  cowardly  and  come  under  his  legs,  he 
will,  if  he  can,  stamp  their  guts  out.  I  believe  I  have 
seen  a  dog  tossed  by  a  bull  thirty,  if  not  forty  foot 
high;  and  when  they  are  tossed,  either  higher  or  lower, 
the  men  above  strive  to  catch  them  on  their  shoulders, 
lest  the  fall  might  mischief  the  dogs.  They  com- 
monly lay  sand  about  that  if  they  fall  upon  the 
ground  it  may  be  the  easier.  Notwithstanding  this 
care  a  great  many  dogs  are  killed,  more  have  their 
limbs  broke,  and  some  hold  so  fast  that,  by  the  bull's 

1  No.  108,  August,  1694.  Quoted  by  J.  P.  Malcolm,  Anecdotes 
of  the  Manners  and  Customs  of  London  from  the  Roman  Invasion 
of  the  Year  1700  (London,  1811),  p.  433. 


i3o    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

swinging  them,  their  teeth  are  often  broken  out.  .  .  . 
The  true  courage  and  art  is  to  hold  the  bull  by  the 
nose  'till  he  roars,  which  a  courageous  bull  scorns  to 
do.  .  .  .  This  is  a  sport  the  English  much  delight 
in;  and  not  only  the  baser  sort,  but  the  greatest  lords 
and  ladies. 

An  attendant  upon  the  Duke  of  Nexara,  who 
visited  England  in  1544,  wrote  the  following  ac- 
count of  a  bear-baiting  witnessed  in  London : 

In  another  part  of  the  city  we  saw  seven  bears, 
some  of  them  of  great  size.  They  were  led  out  every 
day  to  an  enclosure,  where  being  tied  with  a  long 
rope,  large  and  intrepid  dogs  are  thrown  to  them, 
in  order  that  they  may  bite  and  make  them  furious. 
It  is  no  bad  sport  to  see  them  fight,  and  the  assaults 
they  give  each  other.  To  each  of  the  large  bears 
are  matched  three  or  four  dogs,  which  sometimes 
get  the  better  and  sometimes  are  worsted,  for  be- 
sides the  fierceness  and  great  strength  of  the  bears 
to  defend  themselves  with  their  teeth,  they  hug  the 
dogs  with  their  paws  so  tightly,  that,  unless  the 
masters  came  to  assist  them,  they  would  be  stran- 
gled by  such  soft  embraces.  Into  the  same  place  they 
brought  a  pony  with  an  ape  fastened  on  its  back, 
and  to  see  the  animal  kicking  amongst  the  dogs, 
with  the  screams  of  the  ape,  beholding  the  curs  hang- 
ing from  the  ears  and  neck  of  the  pony,  is  very  laugh- 
able.1 

Orazio  Busino,  the  chaplain  of  the  Venetian  Em- 
bassy in  London,  writes  in  his  Anglipotrida  (161 8) : 

1  The  original  manuscript  of  this  narrative,  in  Spanish,  is 
preserved  in  the  British  Museum.  I  quote  the  translation  by 
Frederick  Madden,  in  Archceologia,  xin,  354-55. 


BANKSIDE   AND   BEAR   GARDEN     131 

The  dogs  are  detached  from  the  bear  by  inserting 
between  the  teeth  .  .  .  certain  iron  spattles  with  a 
wooden  handle;  whilst  they  take  them  off  the  bull 
(keeping  at  a  greater  distance)  with  certain  flat  iron 
hooks  which  they  apply  to  the  thighs  or  even  to  the 
neck  of  the  dog,  whose  tail  is  simultaneously  dex- 
terously seized  by  another  of  these  rufflers.  The  bull 
can  hardly  get  at  anybody,  as  he  wears  a  collar  round 
his  neck  with  only  fifteen  feet  of  rope,  which  is  fas- 
tened to  a  stake  deeply  planted  in  the  middle  of  the 
theatre.  Other  rufflers  are  at  hand  with  long  poles  to 
put  under  the  dog  so  as  to  break  his  fall  after  he  has 
been  tossed  by  the  bull;  the  tips  of  these  [poles]  are 
covered  with  thick  leather  to  prevent  them  from  dis- 
embowelling the  dogs.  The  most  spirited  stroke  is 
considered  to  be  that  of  the  dog  who  seizes  the  bull's 
lip,  clinging  to  it  and  pinning  the  animal  for  some 
time;  the  second  best  hit  is  to  seize  the  eyebrows;  the 
third,  but  far  inferior,  consists  in  seizing  the  bull's 
ear.1 

Paul  Hentzner,  the  German  traveler  who  visited 
London  in  1598,  wrote  thus  of  the  Bear  Garden: 

There  is  still  another  place,  built  in  the  form  of  a 
theatre,  which  serves  for  the  baiting  of  bulls  and 
bears;  they  are  fastened  behind,  and  then  worried 
by  great  English  bull-dogs,  but  not  without  great 
risk  to  the  dogs,  from  the  horns  of  the  one,  and  the 
teeth  of  the  other;  and  it  sometimes  happens  they 
are  killed  upon  the  spot;  fresh  ones  are  immediately 
supplied  in  the  places  of  those  that  are  wounded 
or  tired.  To  this  entertainment  there  often  follows 
that  of  whipping  a  blinded  bear,  which  is  performed 
by  five  or  six  men  standing  circularly  with  whips, 

1   The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Venetian,  xv,  258. 


i3a     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

which  they  exercise  upon  him  without  any  mercy, 
as  he  cannot  escape  from  them  because  of  his  chain; 
he  defends  himself  with  all  his  force  and  skill,  throw- 
ing down  all  who  come  within  his  reach,  and  are 
not  active  enough  to  get  out  of  it,  and  tearing  the 
whips  out  of  their  hands  and  breaking  them. 

The  following  passage  is  taken  from  the  diary  of 
the  Duke  of  Wirtemberg  (who  visited  London  in 
1592),  "noted  down  daily  in  the  most  concise  man- 
ner possible,  at  his  Highness's  gracious  command, 
by  his  private  secretary": l 

On  the  1st  of  September  his  Highness  was  shown 
in  London  the  English  dogs,  of  which  there  were 
about  120,  all  kept  in  the  same  enclosure,  but  each 
in  separate  kennel.  In  order  to  gratify  his  Highness, 
and  at  his  desire,  two  bears  and  a  bull  were  baited; 
at  such  times  you  can  perceive  the  breed  and  mettle 
of  the  dogs,  for  although  they  receive  serious  injuries 
from  the  bears,  and  are  caught  by  the  horns  of  the 
bull  and  tossed  into  the  air  so  as  frequently  to  fall 
down  again  upon  the  horns,  they  do  not  give  in,  [but 
fasten  on  the  bull  so  firmly]  that  one  is  obliged  to  pull 
them  back  by  the  tails  and  force  open  their  jaws. 
Four  dogs  at  once  were  set  on  the  bull;  they  how- 
ever could  not  gain  any  advantage  over  him,  for  he 
so  artfully  contrived  to  ward  off  their  attacks  that 
they  could  not  well  get  at  him;  on  the  contrary,  the 
bull  served  them  very  scurvily  by  striking  and  beat- 
ing at  them. 

1  The  secretary  was  named  Jacob  Rathgeb,  and  the  diary 
was  published  at  Tubingen  in  1602  with  a  long  title  beginning: 
A  True  and  Faithful  Narrative  of  the  Bathing  Excursion  which 
His  Serene  Highness,  etc.  A  translation  will  be  found  in  Rye, 
England  as  Seen  by  Foreigners,  pp.  3-53. 


BANKSIDE   AND   BEAR   GARDEN     133 

The  following  is  a  letter  from  one  William  Faunte 
to  Edward  Alleyn,  then  proprietor  of  the  Bear 
Garden,  regarding  the  sale  of  some  game  bulls: 

I  understood  by  a  man  which  came  with  two  bears 
from  the  garden,  that  you  have  a  desire  to  buy  one 
of  my  bulls.  I  have  three  western  bulls  at  this  time, 
but  I  have  had  very  ill  luck  with  them,  for  one  of 
them  hath  lost  his  horn  to  the  quick,  that  I  think 
he  will  never  be  able  to  fight  again;  that  is  my  old 
Star  of  the  West:  he  was  a  very  easy  bull.  And  my 
bull  Bevis,  he  hath  lost  one  of  his  eyes,  but  I  think 
if  you  had  him  he  would  do  you  more  hurt  than 
good,  for  I  protest  I  think  he  would  either  throw 
up  your  dogs  into  the  lofts,  or  else  ding  out  their 
brains  against  the  grates.1 

Finally,  among  the  Alleyn  papers  of  Dulwich 
College  is  an  interesting  bill,  or  advertisement,  of 
an  afternoon's  performance  at  the  Bear  Garden : 

To-morrow  being  Thursday  shall  be  seen  at  the 
Bear  Garden  on  the  Bankside  a  great  match  played 
by  the  gamesters  of  Essex,  who  hath  challenged  all 
comers  whatsoever  to  play  five  dogs  at  the  single 
bear  for  five  pounds,  and  also  to  weary  a  bull  dead 
at  the  stake;  and  for  your  better  content  [you]  shall 
have  pleasant  sport  with  the  horse  and  ape  and  whip- 
ping of  the  blind  bear.    Vivat  Rex! 

In  161 3  the  Bear  Garden  was  torn  down,  and  a 
new  and  handsomer  structure  erected  in  its  place. 
For  the  history  of  this  building  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  chapter  on  "The  Hope." 

1  Collier,  The  Alleyn  Papers,  p.  31. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
NEWINGTON  BUTTS 

THE  Bankside,  as  the  preceding  chapter  indi- 
cates, offered  unusual  attractions  to  the  ac- 
tors. It  had,  indeed,  long  been  associated  with 
the  drama:  in  1545  King  Henry  VIII,  in  a  procla- 
mation against  vagabonds,  players,1  etc.,  noted 
their  "fashions  commonly  used  at  the  Bank,  and 
such  like  naughty  places,  where  they  much  haunt"; 
and  in  1547  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  made  com- 
plaint that  at  a  time  when  he  intended  to  have  a 
dirge  and  mass  for  the  late  King,  the  actors  in 
Southwark  planned  to  exhibit  "a  solemn  play, 
to  try  who  shall  have  the  most  resort,  they  in 
game  or  I  in  earnest."  2  The  players,  therefore, 
were  no  strangers  to  "the  Bank."  And  when  later 
in  the  century  the  hostility  of  the  Common  Coun- 
cil drove  them  to  seek  homes  in  localities  not  un- 
der the  jurisdiction  of  the  city,  the  suburb  across 
the  river  offered  them  a  suitable  refuge.  For,  al- 
though a  large  portion  of  Southwark  was  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  London,  certain  parts  were  not, 

1  It  is  just  possible  —  but,  I  think,  improbable  —  that  the 
term  "common  players"  as  used  in  this  proclamation  referred  to 
gamblers.    The  term  is  regularly  used  in  law  to  designate  actors. 

2  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  154.7,  February  5, 
p.  I ;  cf.  Tytler's  Edward  VI  and  Mary,  1,  20. 


NEWINGTON   BUTTS  135 

notably  the  Liberty  of  the  Clink  and  the  Manor 
of  Paris  Garden,  two  sections  bordering  the  river's 
edge,  and  the  district  of  Newington  lying  farther 
back  to  the  southwest.  In  these  places  the  actors 
could  erect  their  houses  and  entertain  the  public 
without  fear  of  the  ordinances  of  the  Corporation, 
and  without  danger  of  interruption  by  puritanical 
Lord  Mayors. 

Yet,  as  we  have  seen,  the  first  public  playhouses 
were  erected  not  on  the  Bankside  —  a  "naughty" 
place,  —  but  near  Finsbury  Field  to  the  north  of 
the  city;  and  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  selec- 
tion of  such  a  quiet  and  respectable  district  have 
been  pointed  out.1  It  was  inevitable,  however, 
that  sooner  or  later  a  playhouse  should  make  its 
appearance  in  the  region  to  the  south  of  the  city. 
And  at  an  early  date  —  how  early  it  is  impossible 
to  say,  but  probably  not  long  after  the  erection 
of  the  Theatre  and  the  Curtain  —  there  appeared 
in  Southwark  a  building  specially  devoted  to  the 
use  of  players.  Whether  it  was  a  new  structure 
modeled  after  the  theatres  of  Shoreditch,  or  merely 
an  old  building  converted  into  a  playhouse,  we  can- 
not say.  It  seems  to  have  been  something  more 
than  an  inn-yard  fitted  up  for  dramatic  purposes, 
and  yet  something  less  than  the  "sumptuous  thea- 
tre houses"  erected  "on  purpose"  for  plays  to  the 
north  of  the  city. 

Whatever  the  building  was,  it  was  situated  at 

1  See  page  29. 


13  6     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Newington  Butts  (a  place  so  called  from  the  butts 
for  archery  anciently  erected  there),  and,  unfor- 
tunately, at  a  considerable  distance  from  the 
river.  Exactly  how  far  playgoers  from  London 
had  to  walk  to  reach  the  theatre  after  crossing 
over  the  river  we  do  not  know;  but  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil speaks  of  "the  tediousness  of  the  way"  thither,1 
and  Stow  notes  that  the  parish  church  of  Newing- 
ton was  "distant  one  mile  from  London  Bridge. " 
Further  information  about  the  building  —  its 
exact  situation,  its  size,  its  exterior  shape,  its 
interior  arrangement,  and  such-like  details  —  is 
wholly  lacking. 

Nor  are  we  much  better  off  in  regard  to  its 
ownership,  management,  and  general  history. 
This  seems  to  be  due  to  the  fact  that  it  was  not 
intimately  associated  with  any  of  the  more  impor- 
tant London  troupes;  and  to  the  fact  that  after  a 
few  unsuccessful  years  it  ceased  to  exist.  Below  I 
have  recorded  the  few  and  scattered  references  which 
constitute  our  meagre  knowledge  of  its  history. 

The  first  passage  cited  may  refer  to  the  play- 
house at  Newington  Butts.  It  is  an  order  of  the 
Privy  Council,  May  13,  1580,  thus  summarized 
by  the  clerk : 

A  letter  to  the  Justices  of  Peace  of  the  County  of 
Surrey,  that  whereas  their  Lordships  do  understand 

1  The  Council  again  refers  to  the  building  in  the  phrase  "in 
any  of  these  remote  places."  (Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council, 
xii,  15.) 


NEWINGTON   BUTTS  137 

that  notwithstanding  their  late  order  given  to  the 
Lord  Mayor  to  forbid  all  plays  within  and  about  the 
city  until  Michaelmas  next  for  avoiding  of  infection, 
nevertheless  certain  players  do  play  sundry  days 
every  week  at  Newington  Butts  in  that  part  of 
Surrey  without  the  jurisdiction  of  the  said  Lord 
Mayor,  contrary  to  their  Lordship's  order;  their 
Lordships  require  the  Justices  not  only  to  inquire 
who  they  be  that  disobey  their  commandment  in  that 
behalf,  and  not  only  to  forbid  them  expressly  for 
playing  in  any  of  these  remote  places  near  unto  the 
city  until  Michaelmas,  but  to  have  regard  that  within 
the  precinct  of  Surrey  none  be  permitted  to  play;  if 
any  do,  to  commit  them  and  to  advertise  them,  &C.1 

The  next  passage  clearly  refers  to  "the  theatre" 
at  Newington  Butts.  On  May  11,  1586,  the  Privy 
Council  dispatched  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Mayor, 
which  the  clerk  thus  summarized: 

A  letter  to  the  Lord  Mayor:  his  Lordship  is  de- 
sired, according  to  his  request  made  to  their  Lord- 
ships by  his  letters  of  the  vii  th  of  this  present,  to 
give  order  for  the  restraining  of  plays  and  interludes 
within  and  about  the  city  of  London,  for  the  avoiding 
of  infection  feared  to  grow  and  increase  this  time  of 
summer  by  the  common  assemblies  of  people  at 
those  places;  and  that  their  Lordships  have  taken 
the  like  order  for  the  prohibiting  of  the  use  of  plays 
at  the  theatre,  and  the  other  places  about  Newing- 
ton, out  of  his  charge.2 

Chalmers  3  thought  the  word  "theatre"  was 
used  of  the  Newington  Playhouse,  and  for  this 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xn,  15.       2  Ibid.,  xiv,  102. 
»  Apology,  p.  403. 


138     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

he  was  taken  to  task  by  Collier,1  who  says:  "He 
confounds  it  with  the  playhouse  emphatically 
called  'the  Theatre'  in  Shoreditch;  and  on  con- 
sulting the  Register,  we  find  that  no  such  play- 
house as  the  Newington  Theatre  is  there  spoken 
of."  But  Chalmers  was  right;  for  if  we  consult 
the  "Registers"  we  find  the  following  letter,  dis- 
patched to  the  Justices  of  Surrey  on  the  very 
same  day  that  the  letter  just  quoted  was  sent  to 
the  Lord  Mayor: 

A  letter  to  the  Justices  of  Surrey,  that  according 
to  such  direction  as  hath  been  given  by  their  Lord- 
ships to  the  Lord  Mayor  to  restrain  and  inhibit  the 
use  of  plays  and  interludes  in  public  places  in  and 
about  the  City  of  London,  in  respect  of  the  heat  of 
the  year  now  drawing  on,  for  the  avoiding  of  the 
infection  like  to  grow  and  increase  by  the  ordinary 
assemblies  of  the  people  to  those  places,  they  are 
also  required  in  like  sort  to  take  order  that  the  plays 
and  assemblies  of  the  people  at  the  theatre  or  any 
other  places  about  Newington  be  forthwith  re- 
strained and  forborn  as  aforesaid,  &c.2 

The  phrase,  "the  theatre  or  any  other  places  about 
Newington,"  when  addressed  to  the  "Justices  of 
the  Peace  of  Surrey"  could  refer  only  to  the  New- 
ington Butts  Playhouse. 

On  June  23,  1592,  because  of  a  riot  in  South- 
wark,  the  Privy  Council  closed  all  the  playhouses 
in  and  about  London.3  Shortly  after  this  the  Lord 

1  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  m,  131. 

2  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xiv,  99. 

3  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  11,  50,  73. 


NEWINGTON   BUTTS  139 

Strange's  Men,  who  were  then  occupying  the  Rose, 
petitioned  the  Council  to  be  allowed  to  resume 
acting  in  their  playhouse.  The  Council  granted 
them  instead  permission  to  act  three  times  a  week 
at  Newington  Butts;  but  the  players,  not  relish- 
ing this  proposal,  chose  rather  to  travel  in  the 
provinces.  Soon  finding  that  they  could  not  make 
their  expenses  in  the  country,  they  returned  to 
London,  and  again  appealed  to  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil to  be  allowed  to  perform  at  the  Rose.1  The 
warrant  issued  by  the  Council  in  reply  to  this 
second  petition  tells  us  for  the  first  time  some- 
thing definite  about  the  Newington  Butts  The- 
atre: 

To  the  Justices,  Bailiffs,  Constables,  and  Others 
to  Whom  it  Shall  Appertain: 
Whereas  not  long  since,  upon  some  considerations, 
we  did  restrain  the  Lord  Strange  his  servants  from 
playing  at  the  Rose  on  the  Bankside,  and  enjoyned 
them  to  play  three  days  [a  week]  at  Newington 
Butts;  now  forasmuch  as  we  are  satisfied  that  by 
reason  of  the  tediousness  of  the  way,  and  that  of 
long  time  plays  have  not  there  been  used  on  work- 
ing days,  and  for  that  a  number  of  poor  watermen 
are  thereby  relieved,  you  shall  permit  and  suffer 
them,  or  any  other,  there  [at  the  Rose]  to  exercise 
themselves  in  such  sort  as  they  have  done  hereto- 
fore, and  that  the  Rose  may  be  at  liberty  without 
any  restraint  so  long  as  it  shall  be  free  from  infec- 
tion, any  commandment  from  us  heretofore  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.2 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  42.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  43-44. 


14©    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

From  this  warrant  we  learn  that  so  early  as 
1592  the  Newington  house  was  almost  deserted, 
and  that  "of  long  time"  plays  had  been  given 
there  only  occasionally. 

Two  years  later,  on  June  3,  1594,  Henslowe 
sent  the  Admiral's  and  the  Chamberlain's  Men 
to  play  temporarily  at  the  half-deserted  old  play- 
house, probably  in  order  to  give  opportunity  for 
needed  repairs  at  the  Rose.1  The  section  of  his 
Diary,  under  the  heading,  "In  the  name  of  god 
Amen  begininge  at  newington  my  Lord  Admeralle 
men  &  my  Lord  Chamberlen  men  As  followethe 
1594,"  constitutes  the  fullest  and  clearest  —  and, 
one  may  add,  the  most  illustrious  —  chapter  in  the 
history  of  this  obscure  building;  for  although  it 
extends  over  only  ten  days,  it  tells  us  that  Edward 
Alleyn,  Richard  Burbage,  and  William  Shake- 
speare then  trod  the  Newington  stage,  and  it  re- 
cords the  performance  there  of  such  plays  as  The 
Jew  of  Malta,  Andronicus,  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew, 
and  Hamlet. 

We  next  hear  of  the  building  near  the  end  of 
the  century:  in  1599,  says  Mr.  Wallace,  it  was 
"only  a  memory,  as  shown  by  a  contemporary 
record  to  be  published  later."  2 

Two  other  references  close  the  history.  In  A 
Woman  is  a  Weathercock,  in,  iii,  printed  in  161 2, 

1  There  is  no  evidence  that  Henslowe  owned  the  house  at 
Newington;  he  might  very  well  have  rented  it  for  this  particular 
occasion. 

8  Wallace,  The  First  London  Theatre,  p.  2. 


NEWINGTON   BUTTS  141 

but  written  earlier,  one  of  the  actors  exclaims  of 
an  insufferable  pun :  "  0  Nevvington  Conceit ! "  The 
fact  that  this  sneer  is  the  only  reference  to  the 
Nevvington  Playhouse  found  in  contemporary  lit- 
erature is  a  commentary  on  the  low  esteem  in 
which  the  building  was  held  by  the  Elizabethans, 
and  its  relative  unimportance  for  the  history  of 
the  drama. 

The  last  notice  is  in  Howe's  continuation  of 
Stow's  Annals  (163 1).1  After  enumerating  all  the 
theatres  built  in  London  and  the  suburbs  "within 
the  space  of  three-score  years,"  he  adds  vaguely, 
"besides  one  in  former  time  at  Newington  Butts." 

1  Page  1004. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  ROSE 

DOUBTLESS  one  reason  for  the  obscure  role 
which  the  theatre  at  Newington  played  in 
the  history  of  the  drama  was  "the  tediousness  of 
the  way"  thither.  The  Rose,  the  second  theatre 
to  make  its  appearance  in  Surrey,  was  much  more 
conveniently  situated  with  respect  to  the  city, 
for  it  was  erected  in  the  Liberty  of  the  Clink  and 
very  near  the  river's  edge.  As  a  result,  it  quickly 
attained  popularity  with  London  playgoers,  and 
before  the  end  of  the  century  had  caused  the  centre 
of  dramatic  activity  to  be  shifted  from  Finsbury 
Field  to  the  Bank. 

The  builder  of  the  Rose  was  one  Philip  Hens- 
lowe,  then,  so  far  as  our  evidence  goes,  unknown 
to  the  dramatic  world,  but  destined  soon  to  be- 
come the  greatest  theatrical  proprietor  and  mana- 
ger of  the  Tudor-Stuart  age.  We  find  him  living 
on  the  Bankside  and  in  the  Liberty  of  the  Clink 
at  least  as  early  as  1577.  At  first,  so  we  are  told, 
he  was  "but  a  poor  man,"  described  as  "servant 
.  .  .  unto  one  Mr.  Woodward."  Upon  the  death 
of  his  employer,  Woodward,  he  married  the  widow, 
Agnes  Woodward,  and  thus  came  into  the  pos- 
session of  considerable  property.   "All  his  wealth 


THE   ROSE  H3 

came  by  her,"  swore  the  charwoman  Joan  Hor- 
ton.  This,  however,  simply  means  that  Henslowe 
obtained  his  original  capital  by  his  marriage;  for, 
although  very  illiterate,  he  was  shrewd  in  han- 
dling money,  and  he  quickly  amassed  "his  wealth" 
through  innumerable  business  ventures. 

As  one  of  these  ventures,  no  doubt,  he  leased 
from  the  Parish  of  St.  Mildred,  on  March  24,  1585, 
a  small  piece  of  property  on  the  Bankside  known 
as  "The  Little  Rose."  "Among  the  early  surveys, 
1  Edward  VI,"  says  Rendle,  "we  see  that  this  was 
not  merely  a  name  —  the  place  was  a  veritable 
Rose  Garden."  '  At  the  time  of  the  lease  the  prop- 
erty is  described  as  consisting  of  a  dwelling-house 
called  "The  Rose,"  "two  gardens  adjoining  the 
same"  consisting  of  "void  ground,"  and  at  least 
one  other  small  building.  The  dwelling-house 
Henslowe  probably  leased  as  a  brothel  —  for  this 
was  the  district  of  the  stews;  and  the  small  building 
mentioned  above,  situated  at  the  south  end  of  one 
of  the  gardens,  he  let  to  a  London  grocer  named 
John  Cholmley,  who  used  it  "to  keep  victualing 
in."  2 

Not  satisfied,  however,  with  the  income  from 

1  W.  Rendle,  in  The  Antiquarian  Magazine  and  Bibliographer, 
viii,  60. 

'  For  the  earlier  history  of  the  Rose  estate  see  Rendle,  The 
Bankside,  p.  xv,  and  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  n,  43.  "The  plan 
of  the  Rose  estate  in  the  vestry  of  St.  Mildred's  Church  in  Lon- 
don marks  the  estate  exactly,  but  not  the  precise  site  of  the  Rose 
Playhouse.  The  estate  consisted  of  three  rods,  and  was  east  of 
Rose  Alley."  (Rendle,  The  Bankside,  p.  xxx.) 


i44    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

these  two  buildings,  Henslowe  a  year  and  a  half 
later  was  planning  to  utilize  a  part  of  the  "void 
ground"  for  the  erection  of  a  theatre.  What  in- 
terested him  in  the  drama  we  do  not  know,  but  we 
may  suppose  that  the  same  reason  which  led  Bur- 
bage,  Brayne,  Lanmara,  and  others  to  build  play- 
houses influenced  him,  namely,  the  prospect  of 
"great  gains  to  ensue  therefrom."  1 

For  the  site  of  his  proposed  playhouse  he  al- 
lotted a  small  parcel  of  ground  ninety-four  feet 
square  and  lying  in  the  corner  formed  by  Rose 
Alley  and  Maiden  Lane  (see  page  245).  Then  he 
interested  in  the  enterprise  his  tenant  Cholmley, 
for,  it  seems,  he  did  not  wish  to  undertake  so  ex- 
pensive and  precarious  a  venture  without  sharing 
the  risk  with  another.  On  January  10,  1587,  he 
and  Cholmley  signed  a  formal  deed  of  partner- 
ship, according  to  which  the  playhouse  was  to  be 
erected  at  once  and  at  the  sole  cost  of  Henslowe; 
Cholmley,  however,  was  to  have  from  the  begin- 
ning a  half-interest  in  the  building,  paying  for  his 
share  by  installments  of  £25  105.  a  quarter  for  a 
period  of  eight  years  and  three  months.2  The  total 
sum  to  be  paid  by  Cholmley,  £816,  possibly  repre- 

1  Possibly  the  fact  that  Burbage  had  just  secured  control  of 
the  Curtain,  and  hence  had  a  monopoly  of  playhouses,  was  one 
of  the  reasons  for  a  new  playhouse. 

2  The  deed  of  partnership  is  preserved  among  the  Henslowe 
papers  at  Dulwich  College.  For  an  abstract  of  the  deed  see  Greg, 
Henslowe  Papers,  p.  2.  Henslowe  seems  to  have  driven  a  good 
bargain  with  Cholmley. 


THE   ROSE  145 

sents  the  estimated  cost  of  the  building  and  its  full 
equipment,  plus  rental  on  the  land. 

The  building  is  referred  to  in  the  deed  of  Janu- 
ary 10  as  "a  playhouse  now  in  framing  and  shortly 
to  be  erected  and  set  up."  Doubtless  it  was  ready 
for  occupancy  early  in  the  summer.  That  perfor- 
mances were  given  there  before  the  close  of  the 
year  is  at  least  indicated  by  an  order  of  the  Privy 
Council  dated  October  29,  1587: 

A  letter  to  the  Justices  of  Surrey,  that  whereas 
the  inhabitants  of  Southwark  had  complained  unto 
their  Lordships  declaring  that  the  order  by  their 
Lordships  set  down  for  the  restraining  of  plays  and 
interludes  within  that  county  on  the  Sabbath  Days 
is  not  observed,  and  especially  within  the  Liberty 
of  the  Clink,  and  in  the  Parish  of  St.  Saviours   .   .   .* 

The  Rose  was  in  "  the  Liberty  of  the  Clink  and  in 
the  Parish  of  St.  Saviours,"  and  so  far  as  we  have 
any  evidence  it  was  the  only  place  there  devoted 
to  plays.  Moreover,  a  distinct  reference  to  it  by 
name  appears  in  the  Sewer  Records  in  April,  1588, 
at  which  date  the  building  is  described  as  "new."  2 
In  Norden's  Map  of  London  (1593),  the  Rose 
and  the  adjacent  Bear  Garden  are  correctly  placed 
with  respect  to  each  other,  but  are  crudely  drawn 
(see  page  147).  The  representation  of  both  as  cir- 
cular —  the  Bear  Garden,  we  know,  was  polygonal 
—  was  due  merely  to  this  crudeness ;  yet  the  Rose 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xv,  271. 
*  Discovered  by  Mr.  Wallace  and  printed  in  the  London  Times, 
April  30,  1914. 


146     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

seems  to  have  been  indeed  circular  in  shape,  "the 
Bankside's  round-house"  referred  to  in  Tom  Tell 
Troth's  Message.  The  building  is  so  pictured  in  the 
Hondiusmapof  1610  (see  page  149),  and  in  the  inset 
maps  on  the  title-pages  of  Holland's  Herocologia, 
1620,  and  Baker's  Chronicle,  1643  (see  page  147),  all 
three  of  which  apparently  go  back  to  an  early  map 
of  London  now  lost.  The  building  is  again  pictured 
as  circular,  with  the  Bear  Garden  at  the  left  and 
the  Globe  at  the  right,  in  the  Delaram  portrait  of 
King  James  (opposite  page  246).  * 

From  Henslowe's  Diary  we  learn  that  the  play- 
house was  of  timber,  the  exterior  of  lath  and 
plaster,  the  roof  of  thatch;  and  that  it  had  a  yard, 
galleries,  a  stage,  a  tiring-house,  heavens,  and  a 
flagpole.  Thus  it  differed  in  no  essential  way  from 
the  playhouses  already  erected  in  Shoreditch  or 
subsequently  erected  on  the  Bank.2 

What  troupes  of  actors  used  the  Rose  during  the 

1  The  circular  building  pictured  in  these  maps  has  been  widely 
heralded  as  the  First  Globe,  but  without  reason;  all  the  evidence 
shows  that  it  was  the  Rose.  For  further  discussion  see  the  chap- 
ters dealing  with  the  Bear  Garden,  the  Globe,  and  the  Hope. 
In  the  Merian  View,  issued  in  Frankfort  in  1638,  the  Bear  Gar- 
den and  the  Globe,  each  named,  are  shown  conspicuously  in  the 
foreground;  in  the  background  is  vaguely  represented  an  un- 
named playhouse  polygonal  in  shape.  This  could  not  possibly 
be  the  Rose.  Merian's  View  was  a  compilation  from  Visscher's 
View  of  1616  and  some  other  view  of  London  not  yet  identified; 
it  has  no  independent  authority,  and  no  value  whatever  so  far 
as  the  Rose  is  concerned. 

2  If  we  may  believe  Johannes  de  Witt,  the  Rose  was  "more 
magnificent"  than  the  theatres  in  Shoreditch.  See  page  167. 


,^> - ■  •       /-a>t??i*  II ttht ptot—2. 


1  r  L    r^T 


THE  BEAR  GARDEN  AND  THE  ROSE 

The  upper  view,  from  Norden's  Map  of  London,  1593,  shows  the  relative  posi- 
tion of  the  Bear  Garden  and  Rose.  The  lower  view,  an  inset  from  the  title-page 
of  Baker's  Chronicle,  1643,  also  shows  the  relative  position,  and  gives  a  more  de- 
tailed picture  of  the  two  structures.  The  Bear  Garden  is  represented  as  polyg- 
onal, the  Rose  as  circular. 


148     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

first  five  years  of  its  existence  we  do  not  know;  in- 
deed, until  1592  we  hear  nothing  further  of  the 
playhouse.  As  a  result,  some  scholars  have  wrongly 
inferred  that  the  building  was  not  erected  until  the 
spring  of  1592.1  It  seems  likely,  as  Mr.  Greg  sug- 
gests, that  Henslowe  and  Cholmley  let  the  house 
to  some  company  of  players  at  a  stipulated  annual 
rent,  and  so  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  manage- 
ment of  its  finances.  This  would  explain  the  com- 
plete absence  of  references  to  the  playhouse  in 
Henslowe's  accounts. 

During  this  obscure  period  of  five  years  Cholm- 
ley disappears  from  the  history  of  the  Rose.  It  may 
be  that  he  withdrew  from  the  undertaking  at  the 
outset;2  it  may  be  that  he  failed  to  meet  his  pay- 
ments, and  so  forfeited  his  moiety;  or  it  may  be 
that,  becoming  dissatisfied  with  his  bargain,  he 
sold  out  to  Henslowe.  Whatever  the  cause,  his  in- 
terest in  the  playhouse  passed  over  to  Henslowe, 
who  appears  henceforth  as  the  sole  proprietor. 

In  the  spring  of  1592  the  building  was  in  need  of 
repairs,  and  Henslowe  spent  a  large  sum  of  money 
in  thoroughly  overhauling  it.3    The  lathing  and 

1  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres,  p.  155;  Mantzius,  A  His- 
tory of  Theatrical  Art,  p.  58.  Mr.  Wallace's  discovery  of  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Rose  in  the  Sewer  Records  for  April,  1588,  quite 
overthrows  this  hypothesis. 

2  This  seems  unlikely.  At  the  beginning  of  Henslowe's  Diary 
we  find  the  scrawl  "Chomley  when"  (Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary  1, 
217);  this  was  written  not  earlier  than  1592,  and  it  shows  that 
Cholmley  was  at  that  time  in  Henslowe's  mind. 

■  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  1,  7. 


p 
<; 

y. 

M 

a 
a 

< 

o 

< 
H 
pq 


^  S 


"1  3 


•p.* 
II 


J -a 


«->   v 

r  \   u  On 

U  ji  m 

._  .^  i-i 

«?"» 

« u  a 

c    trt  5 

O     -  C 


—  -  o 

&■>  — 

8)  O 

I-3  a 

ED    *j 
J2    t/i 

o    -  5 
•o  o  2 

<?  o    . 

■?  «.2 

^.  •—  «« 

.5  E  £ 

^  .'a 


iDS 


150     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

plastering  of  the  exterior  were  done  over,  the  roof 
was  re-thatched,  new  rafters  were  put  in,  and 
much  heavy  timber  was  used,  indicating  impor- 
tant structural  alterations.  In  addition,  the  stage 
was  painted,  the  lord's  room  and  the  tiring-house 
were  provided  with  ceilings,  a  new  flagpole  was 
erected,  and  other  improvements  were  introduced. 
Clearly  an  attempt  was  made  to  render  the  build- 
ing not  only  stronger,  but  also  more  attractive  in 
appearance  and  more  modern  in  equipment. 

The  immediate  occasion  for  these  extensive  alter- 
ations and  repairs  was  the  engagement  of  Lord 
Strange's  Men  to  occupy  the  playhouse  under 
Henslowe's  management.  This  excellent  troupe, 
with  Edward  Alleyn  at  its  head,  was  perhaps  the 
best  company  of  actors  then  in  London.  It  later 
became  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Company,  with 
which  Shakespeare  was  identified;  even  at  this 
early  date,  although  documentary  proof  is  lacking, 
he  may  have  been  numbered  among  its  obscure 
members.  The  troupe  opened  the  Rose  on  Febru- 
ary 19, 1592,  with  a  performance  of  Robert  Greene's 
Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay,  and  followed  this 
with  many  famous  plays,  such  as  The  Spanish 
Tragedy,  The  Jew  of  Malta,  Orlando  Furioso,  and 
Henry  VI.1 

The  coming  of  Lord  Strange's  Men  to  the  Rose 
led  to  a  close  friendship  between  Henslowe  and 
Edward  Alleyn,  then  twenty-six  years  of  age,  and 

1  For  a  list  of  their  plays  see  Greg,  Henslowe'' s  Diary,  I,  13  ff. 


THE   ROSE  151 

at  the  height  of  his  fame  as  an  actor,  a  friendship 
which  was  cemented  in  the  autumn  by  Alleyn's 
marriage  to  Henslowe's  stepdaughter  (and  only- 
child)  Joan  Woodward.  The  two  men,  it  seems, 
were  thoroughly  congenial,  and  their  common  in- 
terests led  to  the  formation  of  a  business  partner- 
ship which  soon  became  the  most  important  single 
force  in  the  theatrical  life  of  the  time. 

Lord  Strange's  Men  continued  to  act  at  the  Rose 
from  February  19  until  June  23,  1592,  when  the 
Privy  Council,  because  of  a  serious  riot  in  South- 
wark,  ordered  the  closing  of  all  playhouses  in 
and  about  London  until  Michaelmas  following. 
Strange's  Men  very  soon  petitioned  the  Council  to 
be  allowed  to  reopen  their  playhouse;  the  Council, 
in  reply,  compromised  by  granting  them  permis- 
sion to  act  three  days  a  week  at  Newington  Butts. 
This,  however,  did  not  please  the  actors,  and  they 
started  on  a  tour  of  the  provinces.  In  a  short  time, 
discovering  that  they  could  not  pay  their  expenses 
on  the  road,  they  again  petitioned  for  permission  to 
open  the  Rose,  complaining  that  "our  company  is 
great,  and  thereby  our  charge  intolerable  in  travel- 
ing the  country,"  and  calling  attention  to  the  fact 
that  "  the  use  of  our  playhouse  on  the  Bankside,  by 
reason  of  the  passage  to  and  from  the  same  by 
water,  is  a  great  relief  to  the  poor  watermen  there." l 
The  petition  was  accompanied  by  a  supporting  pe- 
tition from  the  watermen  asking  the  Council  "for 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  42. 


152     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

God's  sake  and  in  the  way  of  charity  to  respect 
us  your  poor  watermen."  As  a  result  of  these  peti- 
tions the  Council  gave  permission,  probably  late  in 
August,  1592,  for  the  reopening  of  the  playhouse.1 
But  before  Strange's  Men  could  take  advantage  of 
this  permission,  a  severe  outbreak  of  the  plague 
caused  a  general  inhibition  of  acting,  and  not  until 
December  29,  1592,  were  they  able  to  resume  their 
performances  at  the  Rose.  A  month  later  the 
plague  broke  out  again  with  unusual  severity,  and 
on  February  1,  1593,  playing  was  again  inhibited. 
The  year  rapidly  developed  into  one  of  the  worst 
plague-years  in  the  history  of  the  city;  between  ten 
and  fifteen  thousand  persons  died  of  the  epidemic, 
and  most  of  the  London  companies,  including 
Strange's  Men,  went  on  an  extended  tour  of  the 
country. 

Near  the  close  of  the  year,  and  while  Strange's 
Men  were  still  traveling,  the  plague  temporarily 
subsided,  and  Sussex's  Men,  who  were  then  in 
London,  secured  the  use  of  the  Rose.  They  began 
to  act  there  on  December  27,  1593 ;  but  on  Febru- 
ary 6, 1594,  the  plague  having  again  become  threat- 
ening, acting  was  once  more  inhibited.  This  brief 
occupation  of  the  Rose  by  Sussex's  Men  was 
notable  only  for  the  first  performance  of  Titus 
Andronicus} 

1  See  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  43.    For  a  general  discussion 
of  various  problems  involved,  see  Greg,  Henslowe' s  Diary,  11,  51-2. 

2  Greg,  Henslowe' s  Diary,  1,  16. 


J(i\\    WOODWARD    ALLEYN 
The  stepdaughter  and  only  child  of  Philip  Henslowe,  whose  marriage  t<i  the  great 

actor  Edward  Alleyn  led  to  the  Henslowe-  A I  ley  n  theatrical  enterprises.    The  portrait 
is  here  reproduced  for  the  first  time.  (From  the  Dulwich  Picture  Gallery,  by  permission.) 


THE   ROSE  153 

At  Easter,  April  1,  Strange's  Men  being  still  ab- 
sent, Henslowe  allowed  the  Rose  to  be  used  for 
eight  days  by  "the  Queen's  Men  and  my  Lord  of 
Sussex's  together."  This  second  brief  chapter  in 
the  long  and  varied  history  of  the  playhouse  is 
interesting  only  for  two  performances  of  the  old 
King  Leir} 

As  a  result  of  the  severe  plague  and  the  long  con- 
tinued inhibition  of  acting,  there  was  a  general  con- 
fusion and  subsequent  reorganization  of  the  various 
London  troupes.  The  Admiral's  Men,  who  had 
been  dispersed  in  1591,  some  joining  Strange's 
Men,  some  going  to  travel  in  Germany,  were 
brought  together  again;  and  Edward  Alleyn,  who 
had  formerly  been  their  leader,  and  who  even  after 
he  became  one  of  Strange's  Men  continued  to  de- 
scribe himself  as  "servant  to  the  right  honorable 
the  Lord  Admiral,"  2  was  induced  to  rejoin  them. 
Alleyn  thereupon  brought  them  to  the  Rose,  where 
they  began  to  perform  on  May  14,  1594.  After 
three  days,  however,  they  ceased,  probably  to 
allow  Henslowe  to  make  repairs  or  improvements 
on  the  building. 

Strange's  Men  also  had  undergone  reorganiza- 
tion. On  April  16,  1594,  they  lost  by  death  their 
patron,  the  Earl  of  Derby.  Shortly  afterwards 
they  secured  the  patronage  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 

1  Greg,  Henslowe' 5  Diary,  i,  17. 

1  He  is  so  described,  for  example,  in  the  warrant  issued  by  the 
Privy  Council  on  May  6,  1593,  to  Strange's  Men. 


i54     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

lain,  and  before  June  3,  1594,  they  had  arrived  in 
London  and  reported  to  their  former  manager, 
Henslowe. 

At  this  time,  apparently,  the  Rose  was  still 
undergoing  repairs;  so  Henslowe  sent  both  the 
Admiral's  and  the  Chamberlain's  Men  to  act  at 
Newington  Butts,  where  they  remained  from  June 
3  to  June  13,  1594.  On  June  15  the  Admiral's  Men 
moved  back  to  the  Rose,  which  henceforth  they 
occupied  alone;  and  the  Chamberlain's  Men,  thus 
robbed  of  their  playhouse,  went  to  the  Theatre  in 
Shoreditch. 

During  the  period  of  Lent,  1595,  Henslowe  took 
occasion  to  make  further  repairs  on  his  playhouse, 
putting  in  new  pales,  patching  the  exterior  with 
new  lath  and  plaster,  repainting  the  woodwork, 
and  otherwise  furbishing  up  the  building.  The 
total  cost  of  this  work  was  £108  10s.  And  shortly 
after,  as  a  part  of  these  improvements,  no  doubt, 
he  paid  £7  2s.  for  "making  the  throne  in  the 
heavens." 1 

Near  the  close  of  July,  1597,  Pembroke's  Men  at 
the  Swan  acted  Nashe's  satirical  play,  The  Isle  of 
Dogs,  containing,  it  seems,  a  burlesque  on  certain 
persons  high  in  authority.  As  a  result  the  Privy 
Council  on  July  28  ordered  all  acting  in  and  about 
London  to  cease  until  November  1,  and  all  public 
playhouses  to  be  plucked  down  and  ruined.2 

1  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  i,  4. 

*  For  the  details  of  this  episode  see  the  chapter  on  the  Swan. 


THE   ROSE  155 

The  latter  part  of  the  order,  happily,  was  not 
put  into  effect,  and  on  October  11  the  Rose  was 
allowed  to  open  again.  The  Privy  Council,  how- 
ever, punished  the  Swan  and  Pembroke's  Company 
by  ordering  that  only  the  Admiral's  Men  at  the 
Rose  and  the  Chamberlain's  Men  at  the  Curtain 
should  henceforth  be  "allowed."  As  a  consequence 
of  this  trouble  with  the  authorities  the  best  actors 
of  Pembroke's  Company  joined  the  Admiral's  Men 
under  Henslowe.  This  explains  the  entry  in  the 
Diary:  "In  the  name  of  God,  amen.  The  xi  of 
October  began  my  Lord  Admiral's  and  my  Lord 
Pembroke's  Men  to  play  at  my  house,  1597."  1 
The  two  companies  were  very  soon  amalgamated, 
and  the  strong  troupe  thus  formed  continued  to  act 
at  the  Rose  under  the  name  of  the  Admiral's  Men. 

The  Chamberlain's  Men,  who  in  1594  had  been 
forced  to  surrender  the  Rose  to  the  Admiral's  Men 
and  move  to  the  Theatre,  and  who  in  1597  had 
been  driven  from  the  Theatre  to  the  Curtain,  at 
last,  in  1599,  built  for  themselves  a  permanent 
home,  the  Globe,  situated  on  the  Bankside  and 
close  to  the  Rose.  Henslowe's  ancient  structure  2 
was  eclipsed  by  this  new  and  handsome  building, 
"the  glory  of  the  Bank";  and  the  Admiral's  Men, 
no  doubt,  felt  themselves  placed  at  a  serious  disad- 

1  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  I,  54. 

7  In  January,  1600,  the  Earl  of  Nottingham  refers  to  "the 
dangerous  decay"  of  the  Rose.  See  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  45; 
cf.  p.  52. 


156     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

vantage.  As  a  result,  in  the  spring  of  1600,  Hens- 
lowe  and  Alleyn  began  the  erection  of  a  splendid 
new  playhouse,  the  Fortune,  designed  to  surpass 
the  Globe  in  magnificence,  and  to  furnish  a  suita- 
ble and  permanent  home  for  the  Admiral's  Men. 
The  building  was  situated  in  the  suburb  to  the 
north  of  the  city,  far  away  from  the  Bankside  and 
the  Globe. 

The  erection  of  this  handsome  new  playhouse  led 
to  violent  outbursts  from  the  Puritans,  and  vigor- 
ous protests  from  the  city  fathers.  Accordingly  the 
Privy  Council  on  June  22,  1600,  issued  the  follow- 
ing order : ! 

Whereas  divers  complaints  have  heretofore  been 
made  unto  the  Lords  and  other  of  Her  Majesty's 
Privy  Council  of  the  manifold  abuses  and  disorders 
that  have  grown  and  do  continue  by  occasion  of 
many  houses  erected  and  employed  in  and  about 
London  for  common  stage-plays;  and  now  very  lately 
by  reason  of  some  complaint  exhibited  by  sundry 
persons  against  the  building  of  the  like  house  [the 
Fortune]  in  or  near  Golding  Lane  .  .  .  the  Lords  and 
the  rest  of  Her  Majesty's  Privy  Council  with  one  and 
full  consent  have  ordered  in  manner  and  form  as 
follows.  First,  that  there  shall  be  about  the  city  two 
houses,  and  no  more,  allowed  to  serve  for  the  use  of 
the  common  stage-plays;  of  the  which  houses,  one 
[the  Globe]  shall  be  in  Surrey,  in  that  place  which  is 
commonly  called  the  Bankside,  or  thereabouts;  and 
the  other  [the  Fortune],  in  Middlesex. 

This  sealed  the  fate  of  the  Rose. 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxx,  395. 


THE   ROSE  157 

In  July  the  Admiral's  Men  had  a  reckoning  with 
Henslowe,  and  prepared  to  abandon  the  Bankside. 
After  they  had  gone,  but  before  they  had  opened 
the  Fortune,  Henslowe,  on  October  28,  1600,  let  the 
Rose  to  Pembroke's  Men  for  two  days.1  Possibly 
the  troupe  had  secured  special  permission  to  use 
the  playhouse  for  this  limited  time;  possibly  Hens- 
lowe thought  that  since  the  Fortune  was  not 
yet  open  to  the  public,  no  objection  would  be 
made.  Of  course,  after  the  Admiral's  Men  opened 
the  Fortune  —  in  November  or  early  in  Decem- 
ber, 1600  —  the  Rose,  according  to  the  order 
of  the  Privy  Council  just  quoted,  had  to  stand 
empty. 

Its  career,  however,  was  not  absolutely  run.  In 
the  spring  of  1602  Worcester's  Men  and  Oxford's 
Men  were  "joined  by  agreement  together  in  one 
company,"  and  the  Queen,  "at  the  suit  of  the  Earl 
of  Oxford,"  ordered  that  this  company  be  "al- 
lowed." Accordingly  the  Privy  Council  wrote  to 
the  Lord  Mayor  on  March  31,  1602,  informing  him 
of  the  fact,  and  adding:  "And  as  the  other  com- 
panies that  are  allowed,  namely  of  me  the  Lord 
Admiral  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  be  appointed 
their  certain  houses,  and  one  and  no  more  to  each 
company,  so  we  do  straightly  require  that  this 
company  be  likewise  [appointed]  to  one  place.  And 
because  we  are  informed  the  house  called  the  Boar's 
Head  is  the  place  they  have  especially  used  and  do 

1  Greg,  Henslowe 's  Diary,  i,  131. 


158     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

best  like  of,  we  do  pray  and  require  you  that  that 
said  house,  namely  the  Boar's  Head,  may  be  as- 
signed unto  them." 1  But  the  Lord  Mayor  seems 
to  have  opposed  the  use  of  the  Boar's  Head,  and 
the  upshot  was  that  the  Council  gave  permission 
for  this  "third  company"  to  open  the  Rose.  In 
Henslowe's  Diary,  we  read:  "Lent  unto  my  Lord 
of  Worcester's  Players  as  followeth,  beginning  the 
17  day  of  August,  1602." 

This  excellent  company,  destined  to  become  the 
Queen's  Company  after  the  accession  of  King 
James,  included  such  important  actors  as  William 
Kempe,  John  Lowin,  Christopher  Beeston,  John 
Duke,  Robert  Pallant,  and  Richard  Perkins; 
and  it  employed  such  well-known  playwrights  as 
Thomas  Heywood  (the  "prose  Shakespeare,"  who 
was  also  one  of  the  troupe),  Henry  Chettle,  Thomas 
Dekker,  John  Day,  Wentworth  Smith,  Richard 
Hathway,  and  John  Webster.  The  company  con- 
tinued to  act  at  the  Rose  until  March  16,  1603, 
when  it  had  a  reckoning  with  Henslowe  and  left 
the  playhouse.2  In  May,  however,  after  the  coming 
of  King  James,  it  returned  to  the  Rose,  and  we  find 
Henslowe  opening  a  new  account:  "In  the  name 
of  God,  amen.  Beginning  to  play  again  by  the 
King's  license,  and  laid  out  since  for  my  Lord  of 

1  The  Remembrancia,  n,  189;  The  Malone  Society's  Collec- 
tions, 1,  85. 

2  On  March  19  the  Privy  Council  formally  ordered  the  sup- 
pression of  all  plays.  This  was  five  days  before  the  death  of 
Queen  Elizabeth. 


THE   ROSE  159 

Worcester's  Men,  as  followeth,  1603,  9  of  May."  l 
Since  only  one  entry  follows,  it  is  probable  that  the 
company  did  not  remain  long  at  the  Rose.  No 
doubt,  the  outbreak  of  the  plague  quickly  drove 
them  into  the  country;  and  on  their  return  to 
London  in  the  spring  of  1604  they  occupied  the 
Boar's  Head  and  the  Curtain. 

After  this  there  is  no  evidence  to  connect  the 
playhouse  with  dramatic  performances. 

Henslowe's  lease  of  the  Little  Rose  property,  on 
which  his  playhouse  stood,  expired  in  1605,  and  the 
Parish  of  St.  Mildred's  demanded  an  increase  in 
rental.  The  following  note  in  the  Diary  refers  to  a 
renewal  of  the  lease : 

Memorandum,  that  the  25  of  June,  1603,  I  talked 
with  Mr.  Pope  at  the  scrivener's  shop  where  he  lies,2 
concerning  the  taking  of  the  lease  anew  of  the  little 
Rose,  and  he  shewed  me  a  writing  betwixt  the  parish 

1  Greg,  Henslowe 's  Diary,  i,  190. 

*  Some  scholars  have  supposed  that  this  was  Morgan  Pope, 
a  part  owner  of  the  Bear  Garden;  but  he  is  last  heard  of  in  1585, 
and  by  1605  was  probably  dead.  Mr.  Greg  is  of  the  opinion  that 
Thomas  Pope,  the  well-known  member  of  the  King's  Men  at 
the  Globe,  is  referred  to.  From  this  has  been  developed  the 
theory  that  Pope,  acting  for  the  Globe  players,  had  rented  the 
Rose  and  closed  it  in  order  to  prevent  competition  with  the 
Globe  on  the  Bankside.  I  believe,  however,  that  the  "Mr. 
Pope"  here  referred  to  was  neither  of  these  men,  but  merely  the 
agent  of  the  Parish  of  St.  Mildred.  It  is  said  that  he  lived  at  a 
scrivener's  shop.  This  could  not  apply  to  the  actor  Thomas 
Pope,  for  we  learn  from  his  will,  made  less  than  a  month  later, 
that  he  lived  in  a  house  of  his  own,  furnished  with  plate  and 
household  goods,  and  cared  for  by  a  housekeeper;  and  with  him 
lived  Susan  Gasquine,  whom  he  had  "brought  up  ever  since  she 
was  born." 


160    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

and  himself  which  was  to  pay  twenty  pound  a  year 
rent,1  and  to  bestow  a  hundred  marks  upon  build- 
ing, which  I  said  I  would  rather  pull  down  the  play- 
house than  I  would  do  so,  and  he  bad  me  do,  and 
said  he  gave  me  leave,  and  would  bear  me  out,  for 
it  was  in  him  to  do  it.2 

Henslowe  did  not  rencn  i  his  lease  of  the  property. 
On  October  4,  1605,  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sewers  amerced  him  for  the  Rose,  but  return  was 
made  that  it  was  then  "out  of  his  hands." 3  From 
a  later  entry  in  the  Sewer  Records,  February  14, 
1606,  we  learn  that  the  new  owner  of  the  Rose  was 
one  Edward  Box,  of  Bread  Street,  London.  Box, 
it  seems,  either  tore  down  the  building,  or  con- 
verted it  into  tenements.  The  last  reference  to  it  in 
the  Sewer  Records  is  on  April  25,  1606,  when  it  is 
referred  to  as  "the  late  playhouse."  4 

1  The  old  rental  was  £7  a  year. 

2  Greg,  Henslowe' 's  Diary,  1,  178. 

3  Wallace  in  the  London  Times,  April  30,  1914,  p.  10.  In  view 
of  these  records  it  seems  unnecessary  to  refute  those  persons  who 
assert  that  the  Rose  was  standing  so  late  as  1622.  I  may  add, 
however,  that  before  Mr.  Wallace  published  the  Sewer  Records 
I  had  successfully  disposed  of  all  the  evidence  which  has  been 
collected  to  show  the  existence  of  the  Rose  after  1605.  The  chief 
source  of  this  error  is  a  footnote  by  Malone  in  Variorum,  in,  56; 
the  source  of  Malone's  error  is  probably  to  be  seen  in  his  foot- 
note, ibid.,  p.  66. 

4  For  the  tourist  the  memory  of  the  old  playhouse  to-day 
lingers  about  Rose  Alley  on  the  Bank. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  SWAN 

THE  Manor  of  Paris  Garden,1  situated  on  the 
Bankside  just  to  the  west  of  the  Liberty  of  the 
Clink  and  to  the  east  of  the  Lambeth  marshes,  had 
once  been  in  the  possession  of  the  Monastery  of 
Bermondsey.  At  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries 
by  Henry  VIII,  the  property  passed  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  Crown;  hence  it  was  free  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of 
London,  and  was  on  this  account  suitable  for  the 
erection  of  a  playhouse.  From  the  Crown  the 
property  passed  through  several  hands,  until 
finally,  in  1589,  the  entire  "lordship  and  manor  of 
Paris  Garden"  was  sold  for  £850  to  Francis  Lang- 
ley,  goldsmith  and  citizen  of  London.2 

Langley  had  purchased  the  Manor  as  an  invest- 
ment, and  was  ready  to  make  thereon  such  im- 
provements as  seemed  to  offer  profitable  returns. 
Burbage  and  Henslowe  were  reputed  to  be  growing 
wealthy  from  their  playhouses,  and  Langley  was 
tempted  to  erect  a  similar  building  on  his  newly  ac- 
quired property.  Accordingly  at  some  date  before 
November,  1594,  he  secured  a  license  to  erect  a 

1  Or  "Parish  Garden."   See  the  note  on  page  [21. 

*  The  sale  took  the  form  of  a  lease  for  one  thousand  years. 


1 62     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

theatre  in  Paris  Garden.  The  license  was  promptly 
opposed  by  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  who  ad- 
dressed to  the  Lord  High  Treasurer  on  November 
3,  1594,  the  following  letter: 

I  understand  that  one  Francis  Langley  .  .  .  in- 
tendeth  to  erect  a  new  stage  or  theatre  (as  they  call 
it)  for  the  exercising  of  plays  upon  the  Bankside. 
And  forasmuch  as  we  find  by  daily  experience  the 
great  inconvenience  that  groweth  to  this  city  and 
the  government  thereof  by  the  said  plays,  I  have 
emboldened  myself  to  be  an  humble  suitor  to  your 
good  Lordship  to  be  a  means  for  us  rather  to  sup- 
press all  such  places  built  for  that  kind  of  exercise, 
than  to  erect  any  more  of  the  same  sort.1 

The  protest  of  the  Lord  Mayor,  however,  went  un- 
heeded, and  Langley  proceeded  with  the  erection 
of  his  building.  Presumably  it  was  finished  and 
ready  for  the  actors  in  the  earlier  half  of  1595. 

The  name  given  to  the  new  playhouse  was  "The 
Swan."  What  caused  Langley  to  adopt  this  name 
we  do  not  know; 2  but  we  may  suppose  that  it  was 
suggested  to  him  by  the  large  number  of  swans 
which  beautified  the  Thames.  Foreigners  on  their 
first  visit  to  London  were  usually  very  much  im- 
pressed by  the  number  and  the  beauty  of  these 
birds.  Hentzner,  in  1598,  stated  that  the  river 
"abounds  in  swans,  swimming  in  flocks;  the  sight 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  I,  74-76. 

2  The  swan  was  not  uncommon  as  a  sign,  especially  along  the 
river;  for  example,  it  was  the  sign  of  one  of  the  famous  brothels 
on  the  Bankside,  as  Stow  informs  us. 


IMM*J0    tflMIH  im 


1 64     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

of  them  and  their  noise  is  vastly  agreeable  to  the 
boats  that  meet  them  in  their  course";  and  the 
Italian  Francesco  Ferretti  observed  that  the  "broad 
river  of  Thames"  was  "most  charming,  and  quite 
full  of  swans  white  as  the  very  snow."  x 

From  a  map  of  the  Manor  of  Paris  Garden  care- 
fully surveyed  by  order  of  the  King  in  1627  2  (see 
page  163),  we  learn  the  exact  situation  of  the  build- 
ing. It  was  set  twenty-six  poles,  or  four  hundred 
and  twenty-six  feet,  from  the  bank  of  the  river,  in 
that  corner  of  the  estate  nearest  London  Bridge. 
Most  of  the  playgoers  from  London,  however, 
came  not  over  the  Bridge,  but  by  water,  landing  at 
the  Paris  Garden  Stairs,  or  at  the  near-by  Falcon 
Stairs,  and  then  walking  the  short  distance  to  the 
theatre. 

An  excellent  picture  of  the  exterior  of  the  Swan 
is  furnished  by  Visscher's  View  of  London,  1616, 
(see  page  165) .  From  this,  as  well  as  from  the  survey 
of  1627  just  mentioned,  we  discover  that  the  build- 
ing was  duodecahedral  —  at  least  on  the  outside, 
for  the  interior  probably  was  circular.  At  the  time 
of  its  erection  it  was,  so  we  are  told,  "the  largest 
and  the  most  magnificent  playhouse"  in  London. 
It  contained  three  galleries  surrounding  an  open 
pit,  with  a  stage  projecting  into  the  pit;  and  prob- 
ably it  differed  in  no  essential  respect  from  the 

1  Quoted  in  Rye,  England  as  Seen  by  Foreigners,  p.  183. 

2  Reproduced  by  Rendle,  The  Bankside,  Southwark,  and  the 
Globe  Playhouse. 


THE  SWAN 


165 


THE  SWAN  PLAYHOUSE 
(From  Visscher's  View  of  London,  1616). 

playhouses  already  built.  In  one  point,  however,  it 
may  have  differed  —  although  of  this  I  cannot  feel 
sure:  it  may  have  been  provided  with  a  stage  that 
could  be  removed  so  as  to  allow  the  building  to  be 
used  on  occasions  for  animal-baiting.  The  De  Witt 


1 66     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

drawing  shows  such  a  stage;  and  possibly  Stow  in 
his  Survey  (1598)  gives  evidence  that  the  Swan  was 
in  early  times  employed  for  bear-baiting : 

And  to  begin  at  the  west  bank  as  afore,  thus  it 
followeth.  On  this  bank  is  the  bear  gardens,  in  num- 
ber twain;  to  wit,  the  old  bear  garden  [i.e.,  the  one 
built  in  1583?]  and  the  new  [i.e.,  the  Swan?],  places 
wherein  be  kept  bears,  bulls,  and  other  beasts,  to  be 
baited  at  stakes  for  pleasure;  also  mastiffs  to  bait 
them  in  several  kennels  are  there  nourished.1 

Moreover,  in  161 3  Henslowe  used  the  Swan  as  the 
model  for  the  Hope,  a  building  designed  for  both 
acting  and  animal-baiting.  It  should  be  noted, 
however,  that  in  all  documents  the  Swan  is  invari- 
ably referred  to  as  a  playhouse,  and  there  is  no  evi- 
dence —  beyond  that  cited  above  —  to  indicate 
that  the  building  was  ever  employed  for  the  bait- 
ing of  bears  and  bulls. 

In  the  summer  of  1596  a  Dutch  traveler  named 
Johannes  de  Witt,  a  priest  of  St.  Mary's  in  Utrecht, 
visited  London,  and  saw,  as  one  of  the  most  inter- 
esting sights  of  the  city,  a  dramatic  performance  at 
the  Swan.  Later  he  communicated  a  description  of 
the  building  to  his  friend  Arend  van  Buchell,2  who 
recorded  the  description  in  his  commonplace-book, 

1  Stow's  original  manuscript  (Harl.  MSS.,  544),  quoted  by 
Collier,  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  in,  96,  note  3. 
The  text  of  the  edition  of  1598  differs  very  slightly. 

2  Apparently  he  allowed  Van  Buchell  to  transcribe  the  descrip- 
tion and  the  rough  pen-sketch  from  his  notebook  or  traveler's 
diary. 


THE   SWAN  167 

along  with  a  crude  and  inexact  drawing  of  the  inte- 
rior (see  page  169),  showing  the  stage,  the  three  gal- 
leries, and  the  pit.1  The  description  is  headed:  "Ex 
Observationibus  Londinensibus  Johannis  de  Witt." 
After  a  brief  notice  of  St.  Paul's,  and  a  briefer  refer- 
ence to  Westminster  Cathedral,  the  traveler  begins 
to  describe  what  obviously  interested  him  far  more. 
I  give  below  a  translation  of  that  portion  relating 
to  the  playhouses : 

There  are  four  amphitheatres  in  London  [the 
Theatre,  Curtain,  Rose,  and  Swan]  of  notable  beauty, 
which  from  their  diverse  signs  bear  diverse  names. 
In  each  of  them  a  different  play  is  daily  exhibited 
to  the  populace.  The  two  more  magnificent  of 
these  are  situated  to  the  southward  beyond  the 
Thames,  and  from  the  signs  suspended  before  them 
are  called  the  Rose  and  the  Swan.  The  two  others 
are  outside  the  city  towards  the  north  on  the  high- 
way which  issues  through  the  Episcopal  Gate,  called 
in  the  vernacular  Bishopgate.2  There  is  also  a  fifth 
[the  Bear  Garden],  but  of  dissimilar  structure,  de- 
voted to  the  baiting  of  beasts,  where  are  main- 
tained in  separate  cages  and  enclosures  many  bears 
and  dogs  of  stupendous  size,  which  are  kept  for 
fighting,  furnishing  thereby  a  most  delightful  spec- 
tacle to  men.  Of  all  the  theatres,3  however,  the  larg- 
est and  the  most  magnificent  is  that  one  of  which 
the  sign  is  a  swan,  called  in  the  vernacular  the  Swan 

1  This  interesting  document  was  discovered  by  Dr.  Karl  T. 
Gaedertz,  and  published  in  full  in  Zur  Kennlnis  der  altenglischen 
Biihne  (Bremen,  1888). 

1  "Via  qua  itur  per  Episcopalem  portam  vulgariter  Biscop- 
gate  nuncupatam." 

•  "Theatrorum." 


1 68     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Theatre;1  for  it  accommodates  in  its  seats  three  thou- 
sand persons,  and  is  built  of  a  mass  of  flint  stones 
(of  which  there  is  a  prodigious  supply  in  Britain),2 
and  supported  by  wooden  columns  painted  in  such 
excellent  imitation  of  marble  that  it  is  able  to  de- 
ceive even  the  most  cunning.  Since  its  form  resem- 
bles that  of  a  Roman  work,  I  have  made  a  sketch  of 
it  above. 

Exactly  when  the  Swan  was  opened  to  the  public, 
or  what  troupes  of  actors  first  made  use  of  it,  we  do 
not  know.  The  visit  of  Johannes  de  Witt,  however, 
shows  that  the  playhouse  was  occupied  in  1596; 
and  this  fact  is  confirmed  by  a  statement  in  the 
lawsuit  of  Shaw  v.  Langley.3  We  may  reasonably 
suppose  that  not  only  in  1596,  but  also  in  1595  the 
building  was  used  by  the  players. 

Our  definite  history  of  the  Swan,  however, 
begins  with  1597.  In  February  of  that  year  eight 
distinguished  actors,  among  whom  were  Robert 
Shaw,  Richard  Jones,  Gabriel  Spencer,  William 

1  "Id  cuius  intersignium  est  cygnus  (vulgo  te  theatre  off  te 
cijn)."  Mr.  Wallace  proposes  to  emend  the  last  clause  to  read: 
"te  theatre  off  te  cijn  off  te  Swan,"  thus  making  "cijn"  mean 
"sign";  but  is  not  this  Flemish,  and  does  not  "cijn"  mean 
"Swan"? 

2  It  is  commonly  thought  that  De  Witt  was  wrong  in  stating 
that  the  Swan  was  built  of  flint  stones.  Possibly  the  plaster  ex- 
terior deceived  him;  or  possibly  in  his  memory  he  confused  this 
detail  of  the  building  with  the  exterior  of  the  church  of  St. 
Mary  Overies,  which  was  indeed  built  of  "a  mass  of  flint  stones." 
On  the  other  hand,  the  long  life  of  the  building  after  it  had  ceased 
to  be  of  use  might  indicate  that  it  was  built  of  stones. 

3  Discovered  by  Mr.  Wallace  and  printed  in  Englische  Studien 
(191 1),  xliii,  340-95.  These  documents  have  done  much  to 
clear  up  the  history  of  the  Swan  and  the  Rose  in  the  year  1597. 


THE  INTERIOR  OF  THE  SWAN  PLAYHOUSE 
Sketched  by  Johannes  de  Witt  in  1596. 


iyo     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Bird,  and  Thomas  Downton,  "servants  to  the 
right  honorable  the  Earl  of  Pembroke,"  entered 
into  negotiations  with  Langley,  or,  as  the  legal  doc- 
ument puts  it,  "fell  into  conference  with  the  said 
Langley  for  and  about  the  hireing  and  taking  a 
playhouse  of  the  said  Langley,  situate  in  the  old 
Paris  Garden,  in  the  Parish  of  St.  Saviours,  in  the 
County  of  Surrey,  commonly  called  and  known  by 
the  name  of  the  sign  of  the  Swan."  The  result  of 
this  conference  was  that  the  members  of  Pem- 
broke's Company  1  became  each  severally  bound 
for  the  sum  of  £100  to  play  at  the  Swan  for  one 
year,  beginning  on  February  21,  1597. 

This  troupe  contained  some  of  the  best  actors  in 
London;  and  Langley,  in  anticipation  of  a  success- 
ful year,  "  disbursed  and  laid  out  for  making  of  the 
said  house  ready,  and  providing  of  apparel  fit  and 
necessary  for  their  playing,  the  sum  of  £300  and 
upwards."  Since  he  was  at  very  little  cost  in  mak- 
ing the  Swan  ready,  "for  the  said  house  was  then 
lately  afore  used  to  have  plays  in  it,"  most  of  this 
sum  went  for  the  purchase  of  "sundry  sort  of  rich 
attire  and  apparel  for  them  to  play  withall." 

Everything  seems  to  have  gone  well  until  near 
the  end  of  July,  when  the  company  presented  The 
Isle  of  Dogs,  a  satirical  play  written  in  part  by  the 

1  I  cannot  agree  with  Mr.  Wallace  that  Langley  induced  these 
players  to  desert  Henslowe,  secured  for  them  the  patronage  of 
Pembroke,  and  thus  was  himself  responsible  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Pembroke  Company. 


THE   SWAN  171 

"young  Juvenal"  of  the  age,  Thomas  Nashe,  and 
in  part  by  certan  "inferior  players,"  chief  of  whom 
seems  to  have  been  Ben  Jonson.1  The  play  appar- 
ently attacked  under  a  thin  disguise  some  persons 
high  in  authority.  The  exact  nature  of  the  offense 
cannot  now  be  determined,  but  Nashe  himself  in- 
forms us  that  "the  troublesome  stir  which  hap- 
pened about  it  is  a  general  rumour  that  hath  filled 
all  England,"  2  and  the  Queen  herself  seems  to  have 
been  greatly  angered.  On  July  28,  1597,  the  Privy 
Council  sent  a  letter  to  the  Justices  of  Middlesex 
and  of  Surrey  informing  them  that  Her  Majesty 
"hath  given  direction  that  not  only  no  plays  shall 
be  used  within  London  or  about  the  city  or  in  any 
public  place  during  this  time  of  summer,  but  that 
also  those  playhouses  that  are  erected  and  built 
only  for  such  purposes  shall  be  plucked  down." 
Accordingly  the  Council  ordered  the  Justices  to  see 
to  it  that  "there  be  no  more  plays  used  in  any  pub- 
lic place  within  three  miles  of  the  city  until  Allhal- 
lows  [i.e.,  November  1]  next";  and,  furthermore,  to 
send  for  the  owners  of  the  various  playhouses  "and 
enjoin  them  by  vertue  hereof  forthwith  to  pluck 
down  quite  the  stages,  galleries,  and  rooms  that  are 
made  for  people  to  stand  in,  and  so  to  deface  the 

1  For  an  account  of  The  Isle  of  Dogs  see  E.  K.  Chambers, 
Modern  Language  Review  (1909),  iv,  407,  511;  R.  B.  McKerrow, 
The  Works  of  Thomas  Nashe,  v,  29;  and  especially  the  import- 
ant article  by  Mr.  Wallace  in  Englische  Sludien  already  re- 
ferred to. 

1  N ashes  Lenten  Stuff e  (1599),  ed.  McKerrow,  in,  153. 


172     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

same  as  they  may  not  be  employed  again  to  sudt 
use."1 

The  Council,  however,  did  not  stop  with  this.  It 
ordered  the  arrest  of  the  authors  of  the  play  and 
also  of  the  chief  actors  who  took  part  in  its  per- 
formance. Nashe  saved  himself  by  precipitate 
flight,  but  his  lodgings  were  searched  and  his  pri- 
vate papers  were  turned  over  to  the  authorities. 
Robert  Shaw  and  Gabriel  Spencer,  as  leaders  of 
the  troupe,  and  Ben  Jonson,  as  one  of  the  "  inferior 
players"  who  had  a  part  in  writing  the  play,2  were 
thrown  into  prison.  The  rest  of  the  company  hur- 
ried into  the  country,  their  speed  being  indicated 
by  the  fact  that  we  find  them  acting  in  Bristol 
before  the  end  of  July. 

Some  of  these  events  are  referred  to  in  the  fol- 
lowing letter,  addressed  by  the  Privy  Council  "to 
Richard  Topclyfe,  Thomas  Fowler,  and  Richard 
Skevington,  esquires,  Doctor  Fletcher,  and  Mr. 
Wilbraham": 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxvn,  313.  Possibly  the 
other  public  playhouses  were  suppressed  along  with  the  Swan 
in  response  to  the  petition  presented  to  the  Council  on  July  28, 
(i.e.  on  the  same  day)  by  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  re- 
questing the  "final  suppressing  of  the  said  stage  plays,  as  well 
at  the  Theatre,  Curtain,  and  Bankside  as  in  all  other  places 
in  and  about  the  city."  See  The  Malone  Society's  Collections, 
1,78. 

2  In  a  marginal  gloss  to  N ashes  Lenten  Stuff e  (1599),  ed.  Mc- 
Kerrow,  in,  154,  Nashe  says:  "I  having  begun  but  the  induction 
and  first  act  of  it,  the  other  four  acts  without  my  consent  or  the 
best  guess  of  my  drift  or  scope,  by  the  players  were  supplied, 
which  bred  both  their  trouble  and  mine  too." 


THE   SWAN 


173 


Upon  information  given  us  of  a  lewd  play  that 
was  played  in  one  of  the  playhouses  on  the  Bank- 
side,  containing  very  seditious  and  slanderous  mat- 
ter, we  caused  some  of  the  players  [Robert  Shaw, 
Gabriel  Spencer,  and  Ben  Jonson1]  to  be  appre- 
hended and  committed  to  prison,  whereof  one  of 
them  [Ben  Jonson]  was  not  only  an  actor  but  a 
maker  of  part  of  the  said  play.  Forasmuch  as  it  is 
thought  meet  that  the  rest  of  the  players  or  actors 
in  that  matter  shall  be  apprehended  to  receive  such 
punishment  as  their  lewd  and  mutinous  behaviour 
doth  deserve,  these  shall  be  therefore  to  require  you 
to  examine  those  of  the  players  that  are  committed 
(whose  names  are  known  to  you,  Mr.  Topclyfe),  what 
is  become  of  the  rest  of  their  fellows  that  either  had 
their  parts  in  the  devising  of  that  seditious  matter, 
or  that  were  actors  or  players  in  the  same,  what 
copies  they  have  given  forth  2  of  the  said  play,  and  to 
whom,  and  such  other  points  as  you  shall  think 
meet  to  be  demanded  of  them,  wherein  you  shall  re- 
quire them  to  deal  truly,  as  they  will  look  to  re- 
ceive any  favour.  We  pray  you  also  to  peruse  such 
papers  as  were  found  in  Nashe  his  lodgings,  which 
Ferrys,  a  messenger  of  the  Chamber,  shall  deliver 
unto  you,  and  to  certify  us  the  examinations  you 
take.3 

1  The  identity  of  the  three  players  is  revealed  in  an  order  of 
the  Privy  Council  dated  October  8,  1597:  "A  warrant  to  the 
Keeper  of  the  Marshalsea  to  release  Gabriel  Spencer  and  Robert 
Shaw,  stage-players,  out  of  prison,  who  were  of  late  committed 
to  his  custody.  The  like  warrant  for  the  releasing  of  Benjamin 
Jonson."   Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxvm,  33.) 

1  Such  a  copy  was  formerly  preserved  in  a  volume  of  miscel- 
laneous manuscripts  at  Alnwick  Castle,  but  has  not  come  down 
to  modern  times.  See  F.  J.  Burgoyne,  Northumberland  Manu- 
scripts (London,  1904). 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxvir,  338. 


174     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

This  unfortunate  occurrence  destroyed  Langley's 
dream  of  a  successful  year.  It  also  destroyed  the 
splendid  Pembroke  organization,  for  several  of  its 
chief  members,  even  before  the  inhibition  was  raised, 
joined  the  Admiral's  Men.  On  August  6  Richard 
Jones  went  to  Henslowe  and  bound  himself  to  play 
for  two  years  at  the  Rose,  and  at  the  same  time  he 
bound  his  friend  Robert  Shaw,  who  was  still  in 
prison ;  on  August  10  William  Bird  came  and  made  a 
similar  agreement;  on  October  6  Thomas  Down- 
ton  did  likewise.  Their  leader,  Gabriel  Spencer,  also 
probably  had  an  understanding  with  Henslowe,  al- 
though he  signed  no  bond ;  and  upon  his  release  from 
the  Marshalsea  he  joined  his  friends  at  the  Rose.1 

In  the  meantime  the  Queen's  anger  was  abat- 
ing, and  the  trouble  was  blowing  over.  The  order 
to  pluck  down  all  the  public  playhouses  was  not 
taken  seriously  by  the  officers  of  the  law,  and  Hens- 
lowe actually  secured  permission  to  reopen  the 
Rose  on  October  1 1 .  The  inhibition  itself  expired 
on  November  I,  but  the  Swan  was  singled  out  for 
further  punishment.  The  Privy  Council  ordered 
that  henceforth  license  should  be  granted  to  two 
companies  only:  namely,  the  Admiral's  at  the 
Rose,  and  the  Chamberlain's  at  the  Curtain.  This 
meant,  of  course,  the  closing  of  the  Swan. 

1  Langley  sued  these  actors  on  their  bond  to  him  of  £100  to 
play  only  at  the  Swan;  see  the  documents  printed  by  Mr.  Wal- 
lace. Ben  Jonson  also  joined  Henslowe's  forces  at  the  Rose,  as 
did  Anthony  and  Humphrey  Jeffes,  who  were  doubtless  mem- 
bers of  the  Pembroke  Company. 


THE   SWAN  175 

In  spite  of  this  order,  however,  the  members  of 
Pembroke's  Company  remaining  after  the  chief 
actors  had  joined  Henslowe,  taking  on  recruits  and 
organizing  themselves  into  a  company,  began  to 
act  at  the  Swan  without  a  license.  For  some  time 
they  continued  unmolested,  but  at  last  the  two 
licensed  companies  called  the  attention  of  the 
Privy  Council  to  the  fact,  and  on  February  19, 
1598,  the  Council  issued  the  following  order  to  the 
Master  of  the  Revels  and  the  Justices  of  both  Mid- 
dlesex and  Surrey: 

Whereas  license  hath  been  granted  unto  two  com- 
panies of  stage  players  retayned  unto  us,  the  Lord 
Admiral  and  Lord  Chamberlain  .  .  .  and  whereas 
there  is  also  a  third  company  who  of  late  (as  we  are 
informed)  have  by  way  of  intrusion  used  likewise 
to  play  .  .  .  we  have  therefore  thought  good  to  re- 
quire you  upon  receipt  hereof  to  take  order  that  the 
aforesaid  third  company  may  be  suppressed,  and 
none  suffered  hereafter  to  play  but  those  two  for- 
merly named,  belonging  to  us,  the  Lord  Admiral 
and  Lord  Chamberlain.1 

Thus,  after  February  19,  1598,  the  Swan  stood 
empty,  so  far  as  plays  were  concerned,  and  we  hear 
very  little  of  it  during  the  next  few  years.  Indeed, 
it  never  again  assumed  an  important  part  in  the 
history  of  the  drama. 

In  the  summer  of  1598  2  it  was  used  by  Robert 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxvm,  327. 

*  After  the  order  of  February  19,  when  the  "intruding  com- 
pany" was  driven  out,  and  before  September  7  when  Meres'* 
Palladis  Tamia  was  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Registers. 


176     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Wilson  for  a  contest  in  extempore  versification. 
Francis  Meres,  in  his  Palladis  Tamia,  writes:  "And 
so  is  now  our  witty  Wilson,  who  for  learning  and 
extemporall  wit  in  this  faculty  is  without  compare 
or  compeere,  as,  to  his  great  and  eternal  commenda- 
tions, he  manifested  in  his  challenge  at  the  Swan 
on  the  Bankside." 

On  May  15,  1600,  Peter  Bromvill  was  licensed  to 
use  the  Swan  "to  show  his  feats  of  activity  at  con- 
venient times  in  that  place  without  let  or  interrup- 
tion." l  The  Privy  Council  in  issuing  the  license 
observed  that  Bromvill  "hath  been  recommended 
unto  Her  Majesty  from  her  good  brother  the 
French  King,  and  hath  shewed  some  feats  of  great 
activity  before  Her  Highness." 

On  June  22,  1600,  the  Privy  Council  "with  one 
and  full  consent"  ordered  "that  there  shall  be 
about  the  city  two  houses,  and  no  more,  allowed  to 
serve  for  the  use  of  the  common  stage  plays;  of 
the  which  houses,  one  [the  Globe]  shall  be  in  Surrey 
.  .  .  and  the  other  [the  Fortune]  in  Middlesex."  2 
This  order  in  effect  merely  confirmed  the  order  of 
1598  which  limited  the  companies  to  two,  the  Ad- 
miral's and  the  Chamberlain's. 

Early  in  1601  Langley  died;  and  in  January, 
1602,  his  widow,  as  administratrix,  sold  the  Manor 
of  Paris  Garden,  including  the  Swan  Playhouse,  to 
Hugh  Browker,  a  prothonotary  of  the  Court  of 

1  Dasent,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  xxx,  327. 
1  Ibid.,  395- 


THE   SWAN  177 

Common  Pleas.  The  property  remained  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  Browker  family  until  1655.1 

On  November  6,  1602,  the  building  was  the  scene 
of  the  famous  hoax  known  as  England's  Joy,  per- 
petrated upon  the  patriotic  citizens  of  London  by 
one  Richard  Vennar.2  Vennar  scattered  hand-bills 
over  the  city  announcing  that  at  the  Swan  Play- 
house, on  Saturday,  November  6,  a  company  of 
"gentlemen  and  gentlewomen  of  account"  would 
present  with  unusual  magnificence  a  play  entitled 
England's  Joy,  celebrating  Queen  Elizabeth.  It 
was  proposed  to  show  the  coronation  of  Elizabeth, 
the  victory  of  the  Armada,  and  various  other 
events  in  the  life  of  "England's  Joy,"  with  the  fol- 
lowing conclusion:  "And  so  with  music,  both  with 
voice  and  instruments,  she  is  taken  up  into  heaven; 
when  presently  appears  a  throne  of  blessed  souls; 
and  beneath,  under  the  stage,  set  forth  with  strange 
fire-works,  diverse  black  and  damned  souls,  won- 
derfully described  in  their  several  torments."  3 
The  price  of  admission  to  the  performance  was  to 

1  For  this  and  other  details  as  to  the  subsequent  history  of 
the  property  see  Wallace,  Englische  Studien,  xliii,  342;  Rendle, 
The  Antiquarian  Magazine,  vn,  207;  and  cf.  the  map  on  page  163. 

2  Many  writers,  including  Mr.  Wallace,  have  confused  this 
Richard  Vennar  with  William  Fennor,  who  later  challenged 
Kendall  to  a  contest  of  wit  at  the  Fortune.  For  a  correct  ac- 
count, see  T.  S.  Graves,  "Tricks  of  Elizabethan  Showmen"  (in 
The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly,  April,  1915,  xiv)  and  "A  Note  on 
the  Swan  Theatre"  (in  Modern  Philology,  January,  1912,  ix,  431). 

1  From  the  broadside  printed  in  The  Harleian  Miscellany,  x, 
198.  For  a  photographic  facsimile,  see  Lawrence,  The  Elizabethan 
Playhouse  (Second  Series),  p.  68. 


178     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

be  "two  shillings,  or  eighteen  pence  at  least."  In 
spite  of  this  unusually  high  price,  an  enormous 
audience,  including  a  "great  store  of  good  company 
and  many  noblemen,"  passed  into  the  building. 
Whereupon  Vennar  seized  the  money  paid  for  ad- 
mission, and  showed  his  victims  "a  fair  pair  of 
heels."  The  members  of  the  audience,  when  they 
found  themselves  thus  duped,  "revenged  them- 
selves upon  the  hangings,  curtains,  chairs,  stools, 
walls,  and  whatsoever  came  in  their  way,  very  out- 
rageously, and  made  great  spoil."  x 

On  February  8,  1603,  John  Manningham  re- 
corded in  his  Diary:  "Turner  and  Dun,  two  famous 
fencers,  playd  their  prizes  this  day  at  the  Bank- 
side,  but  Turner  at  last  run  Dun  so  far  in  the  brain 
at  the  eye,  that  he  fell  down  presently  stone  dead; 
a  goodly  sport  in  a  Christian  state,  to  see  one  man 
kill  another!"  The  place  where  the  contest  was 
held  is  not  specifically  mentioned,  but  in  all  proba- 
bility it  was  the  Swan.2 

For  the  next  eight  years  all  is  silence,  but  we 
may  suppose  that  the  building  was  occasionally 
let  for  special  entertainments  such  as  those  just 
enumerated. 

1  Letters  Written  by  John  Chamberlain,  Camden  Society  (1861), 
p.  163;  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1601-1603,  P-  2^4- 
See  also  Manningham's  Diary,  pp.  82,  93. 

2  This  seems  to  be  the  source  of  the  statement  by  Mr.  Wal- 
lace {Englische  Studien,  xliii,  388),  quoting  Rendle  {The  Anti- 
quarian Magazine,  vn,  210):  "In  1604,  a  man  named  Turner, 
in  a  contest  for  a  prize  at  the  Swan,  was  killed  by  a  thrust  in  the 
eye."   Rendle  cites  no  authority  for  his  statement. 


THE   SWAN  179 

In  161 1  Henslowe  undertook  to  manage  the  Lady 
Elizabeth's  Men,  promising  among  other  things  to 
furnish  them  with  a  suitable  playhouse.  Having 
disposed  of  the  Rose  in  1605,  he  rented  the  Swan 
and  established  his  company  there.  In  1613,  how- 
ever, he  built  the  Hope,  and  transferred  the  Lady 
Elizabeth's  Men  thither. 

The  Swan  seems  thereafter  to  have  been  occu- 
pied for  a  time  by  Prince  Charles's  Men.  But  the 
history  of  this  company  and  its  intimate  connec- 
tion with  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Company  is  too 
vague  to  admit  of  definite  conclusions.  So  far  as 
we  can  judge,  the  Prince's  Men  continued  at  the 
Swan  until  161 5,  when  Henslowe  transferred  them 
to  the  Hope.1 

After  161 5  the  Swan  was  deserted  for  five  years 
so  far  as  any  records  show.  But  in  1621  the  old 
playhouse  seems  to  have  been  again  used  by  the 
actors.  The  Overseers  of  the  Poor  in  the  Liberty  of 
Paris  Garden  record  in  their  Account  Book:  "Mon- 
day, April  the  9th,  1621,  received  of  the  players 
£5  3s.  6^."  2  From  this  it  is  evident  that  in  the 
spring  of  162 1  some  company  of  players,  the  name 
of  which  has  not  yet  been  discovered,  was  occupy- 

1  These  dates  are  in  a  measure  verified  by  the  records  of  the 
Overseers  of  the  Poor  for  the  Liberty  of  Paris  Garden,  printed 
by  Mr.  Wallace  {Englische  Studien,  xliii,  390,  note  1).  Mr.  Wal- 
lace seems  to  labor  under  the  impression  that  this  chapter  in 
the  history  of  the  Swan  (1611-1615)  was  unknown  before,  but 
it  was  adequately  treated  by  Fleay  and  later  by  Mr.  Greg. 

'  Wallace,  op.  cit.,  p.  390,  note  1. 


180    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

ing  the  Swan.  Apparently,  however,  the  company 
did  not  remain  there  long,  for  the  Account  Book 
records  no  payment  the  following  year;  nor,  al- 
though it  extends  to  the  year  1671,  does  it  again 
record  any  payments  from  actors  at  the  Swan. 
There  is,  indeed,  no  evidence  to  connect  the  play- 
house with  dramatic  performances  after  1621.1  In 
the  map  of  1627  it  is  represented  as  still  standing, 
but  is  labeled  "the  old  playhouse,"  and  is  not  even 
named. 

Five  years  later  it  is  referred  to  in  Nicolas  Good- 
man's Holland's  Leaguer  (1632),  a  pamphlet  cele- 
brating one  of  the  most  notorious  houses  of  ill  fame 
on  the  Bankside.2  Dona  Britannica  Hollandia,  the 
proprietress  of  this  house,  is  represented  as  having 
been  much  pleased  with  its  situation : 

Especially,  and  above  all  the  rest,  she  was  most 
taken  with  the  report  of  three  famous  amphitheatres, 
which  stood  so  near  situated  that  her  eye  might  take 
view  of  them  from  the  lowest  turret.  One  was  the 
Continent  of  the  World  [i.e.,  the  Globe],  because  half 
the  year  a  world  of  beauties  and  brave  spirits  re- 
sorted unto  it;  the  other  was  a  building  of  excellent 
Hope,  and  though  wild  beasts  and  gladiators  did 
most  possess  it,  yet  the  gallants  that  came  to  behold 

1  Rendle  quotes  a  license  of  1623  for  "T.  B.  and  three  assis- 
tants to  make  shows  of  Italian  motions  at  the  Princes  Arms  or 
the  Swan."  (The  Antiquarian  Magazine,  1885,  vn,  211.)  But 
this  may  be  a  reference  to  an  inn  rather  than  to  the  large  play- 
house. 

2  What  seems  to  be  a  picture  of  this  famous  house  may  be  seen 
in  Merian's  View  of  London,  1638  (see  opposite  page  256),  with 
a  turret,  and  standing  just  to  the  right  of  the  Swan. 


THE   SWAN  181 

those  combats,  though  they  were  of  a  mixt  society, 
yet  were  many  noble  worthies  amongst  them;  the 
last  which  stood,  and,  as  it  were,  shak'd  hands  with 
this  fortress,  being  in  times  past  as  famous  as  any 
of  the  other,  was  now  fallen  to  decay,  and  like  a 
dying  Swanne,  hanging  down  her  head,  seemed  to 
sing  her  own  dirge. 

This  is  the  last  that  we  hear  of  the  playhouse, 
that  was  "in  times  past  as  famous  as  any  of  the 
other."  What  finally  became  of  the  building  we  do 
not  know.  It  is  not  shown  in  Hollar's  View  of  Lon- 
don, in  1647,  and  probably  it  had  ceased  to  exist 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War. 


i/ 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  SECOND  BLACKFRIARS 

IN  1596  Burbage's  lease  of  the  plot  of  ground  on 
which  he  had  erected  the  Theatre  was  drawing 
to  a  close,  and  all  his  efforts  at  a  renewal  had 
failed.  The  owner  of  the  land,  Gyles  Alleyn,  having, 
in  spite  of  the  terms  of  the  original  contract,  re- 
fused to  extend  the  lease  until  1606,  was  craftily 
plotting  for  a  substantial  increase  in  the  rental; 
moreover,  having  become  puritanical  in  his  atti- 
tude towards  the  drama,  he  was  insisting  that  if 
the  lease  were  renewed,  the  Theatre  should  be  used 
as  a  playhouse  for  five  years  only,  and  then  should 
either  be  torn  down,  or  be  converted  into  tenements. 
Burbage  tentatively  agreed  to  pay  the  increased 
rental,  but,  of  course,  he  could  not  possibly  agree  to 
the  second  demand;  and  when  all  negotiations  on 
this  point  proved  futile,  he  realized  that  he  must 
do  something  at  once  to  meet  the  awkward  situ- 
ation. 

In  the  twenty  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the 
erection  of  the  Theatre  and  the  Curtain  in  Holy- 
well, the  Bankside  had  been  developed  as  a  theat- 
rical district,  and  the  Rose  and  the  Swan,  not  to 
mention  the  Bear  Garden,  had  made  the  south  side 
of  the  river  the  popular  place  for  entertainments. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       183 

Naturally,  therefore,  any  one  contemplating  the 
erection  of  a  playhouse  would  immediately  think 
of  this  locality.  Burbage,  however,  was  a  man  of 
ideas.  He  believed  that  he  could  improve  on  the 
Bankside  as  a  site  for  his  theatre.  He  remembered 
how,  at  the  outset  of  his  career  as  a  theatrical 
manager,  he  had  had  to  face  competition  with 
Richard  Farrant  who  had  opened  a  small  "  private" 
playhouse  in  Blackfriars.  Although  that  building 
had  not  been  used  as  a  "public"  playhouse,  and 
had  been  closed  up  after  a  few  years  of  sore  tribula- 
tion, it  had  revealed  to  Burbage  the  possibilities  of 
the  Blackfriars  precinct  for  theatrical  purposes.  In 
the  first  place,  the  precinct  was  not  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  city,  so  that  actors  would  not  there 
be  subject  to  the  interference  of  the  Lord  Mayor 
and  his  Aldermen.  As  Stevens  writes  in  his  History 
oj Ancient  Abbeys,  Monasteries,  etc. :  "All  the  inhab- 
itants within  it  were  subject  to  none  but  the  King 
.  .  .  neither  the  Mayor,  nor  the  sheriffs,  nor  any 
other  officers  of  the  City  of  London  had  the  least 
jurisdiction  or  authority  therein."  Blackfriars, 
therefore,  in  this  fundamental  respect,  was  just  as 
desirable  a  location  for  theatres  as  was  Holywell  to 
the  north  of  the  city,  or  the  Bankside  to  the  south. 
In  the  second  place,  Blackfriars  had  a  decided  ad- 
vantage over  those  two  suburban  localities  in  that 
it  was  "scituated  in  the  bosome  of  the  Cittie,"  l 

1  The  Petition  of  1619,  in  The  Malone  Society's  Collections, 
1.  93- 


1 84     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

near  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  the  centre  of  London 
life,  and  hence  was  readily  accessible  to  playgoers, 
even  during  the  disagreeable  winter  season.  In  the 
third  place,  the  locality  was  distinctly  fashionable. 
To  give  some  notion  of  the  character  of  its  inhabi- 
tants, I  record  below  the  names  of  a  few  of  those 
who  lived  in  or  near  the  conventual  buildings  at 
various  times  after  the  dissolution :  George  Brooke, 
Lord  Cobham;  William  Brooke,  Lord  Cobham, 
Lord  Chamberlain  of  the  Queen's  Household; 
Henry  Brooke,  Lord  Cobham,  Lord  Warden  of  the 
Cinque  Ports ;  Sir  Thomas  Cheney,  Treasurer  of  the 
Queen's  Household,  and  Lord  Warden  of  the  Cinque 
Ports;  Henry  Carey,  Lord  Hunsdon,  Lord  Cham- 
berlain of  the  Queen's  Household;  George  Carey, 
Lord  Hunsdon,  who  as  Lord  Chamberlain  was  the 
patron  of  Shakespeare's  troupe;  Sir  Thomas  Ca- 
warden,  Master  of  the  Revels ;  Sir  Henry  Jerning- 
ham,  Fee  Chamberlain  to  the  Queen's  Highness; 
Sir  Willam  More,  Chamberlain  of  the  Exchequer; 
Lord  Zanche;  Sir  John  Portynary;  Sir  William 
Kingston;  Sir  Francis  Bryan;  Sir  John  Cheeke;  Sir 
George  Harper;  Sir  Philip  Hoby,  Lady  Anne  Gray; 
Sir  Robert  Kyrkham;  Lady  Perrin;  Sir  Christopher 
More;  Sir  Henry  Neville;  Sir  Thomas  Saunders; 
Sir  Jerome  Bowes;  and  Lady  Jane  Guildford.1 

1  It  is  true  that  poor  people  also,  feather-dealers  and  such-like, 
lived  in  certain  parts  of  Blackfriars,  but  this,  of  course,  did  not 
affect  the  reputation  of  the  precinct  as  the  residence  of  noble- 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       185 

Obviously  the  locality  was  free  from  the  odium 
which  the  public  always  associated  with  Shore- 
ditch  and  the  Bankside,  the  recognized  homes  of 
the  London  stews.1 

Thus,  a  playhouse  erected  in  the  precinct  of 
Blackfriars  would  escape  all  the  grave  disadvan- 
tages of  situation  which  attached  to  the  exist- 
ing playhouses  in  the  suburbs,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  would  gain  several  very  important  advan- 
tages. 

Burbage's  originality,  however,  did  not  stop 
with  the  choice  of  Blackfriars  as  the  site  of  his  new 
theatre;  he  determined  to  improve  on  the  form  of 
building  as  well.  The  open-air  structure  which  he 
had  designed  in  1576,  and  which  had  since  been 
copied  in  all  public  theatres,  had  serious  disad- 
vantages in  that  it  offered  no  protection  from  the 
weather.  Burbage  now  resolved  to  provide  a  large 
"public"  playhouse,  fully  roofed  in,  with  the  en- 
tire audience  and  the  actors  protected  against  the 
inclemency  of  the  sky  and  the  cold  of  winter.  In 
short,  his  dream  was  of  a  theatre  centrally  located, 
comfortably  heated,  and,  for  its  age,  luxuriously 
appointed. 

With  characteristic  energy  and  courage  he  at 

1  In  Samuel  Rowlands's  Humors  Looking  Glass  (1608),  a  rich 
country  gull  is  represented  as  filling  his  pockets  with  money  and 
coming  to  London.  Here  a  servant  "of  the  Newgate  variety" 
shows  him  the  sights  of  the  city: 

Brought  him  to  the  Bankside  where  bears  do  dwell, 
And  unto  Shoreditch  where  the  whores  keep  hell. 


1 86     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

once  set  about  the  task  of  realizing  this  dream.  He 
found  in  the  Blackfriars  precinct  a  large  building 
which,  he  thought,  would  admirably  serve  his  pur- 
pose. This  building  was  none  other  than  the  old 
Frater  of  the  Monastery,  a  structure  one  hundred 
and  ten  feet  long  and  fifty-two  feet  wide,  with 
stone  walls  three  feet  thick,  and  a  flat  roof  covered 
with  lead.  From  the  Loseley  documents,  which  M. 
Feuillerat  has  placed  at  the  disposal  of  scholars,1 
we  are  now  able  to  reconstruct  the  old  Frater 
building,  and  to  point  out  exactly  that  portion 
which  was  made  into  a  playhouse.2 

At  the  time  of  the  dissolution,  the  top  story  con- 
sisted of  a  single  large  room  known  as  the  "Upper 
Frater,"  and  also  as  the  "Parliament  Chamber" 
from  the  fact  that  the  English  Parliament  met  here 
on  several  occasions;  here,  also,  was  held  the  trial 
before  Cardinals  Campeggio  and  Wolsey  for  the 
divorce  of  the  unhappy  Queen  Catherine  and 
Henry  VIII  —  a  scene  destined  to  be  reenacted  in 
the  same  building  by  Shakespeare  and  his  fellows 
many  years  later.  In  1550  the  room  was  granted, 
with  various  other  properties  in  Blackfriars,  to  Sir 
Thomas  Ca warden.3 

1  Blackfriars  Records,  in   The   Malone    Society's   Collections, 

(I9I3)- 

2  For  a  reconstruction  of  the  Priory  buildings  and  grounds, 
and  for  specific  evidence  of  statements  made  in  the  following 
paragraphs,  the  reader  is  referred  to  J.  Q.  Adams,  The  Conventual 
Buildings  of  Blackfriars,  London,  in  the  University  of  North 
Carolina  Studies  in  Philology,  xiv,  64. 

3  Feuillerat,  Blackfriars  Records,  pp.  7,  12. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      187 


LORD    COBMAMS     GARDEN 


WOOD    YARD 


or 


YARD 


DUCHY  CHAMBER 


MALL 


PARLOR 
(MIDDLE  ROOMS) 


LANE  TO  HUNSDONS  HOUSE 


INFIRMARY 

|(lordhunsdons)| 


PLAN  ILLUSTRATING  THE  SECOND  BLACKFRIARS  PLAYHOUSE 
The  Playhouse  was  made  by  combining  the  Hall  and  the  Parlor. 

The  space  below  the  Parliament  Chamber  was 
divided  into  three  units.  At  the  northern  end  was  a 
"Hall"  extending  the  width  of  the  building.  It  is 
mentioned  in  the  Survey  '  of  1548  as  "a  Hall  .  .  . 

1  Feuillerat,  Blackfriars  Records,  p.  7. 


1 88     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

under  the  said  Frater";  and  again  in  the  side-note: 
"Memorandum,  my  Lorde  Warden  claimeth  the 
said  Hall."  Just  to  the  south  of  the  Hall  was  a 
"Parlor,"  or  dining-chamber,  "where  commonly 
the  friars  did  use  to  break  their  fast."  It  is  de- 
scribed in  the  Survey  as  being  "under  the  said 
Frater,  of  the  same  length  and  breadth."  The 
room  could  not  have  been  of  the  "same  length  and 
breadth"  as  the  great  Parliament  Chamber,  for 
not  only  would  such  dimensions  be  absurd  for  an 
informal  dining-room,  but,  as  we  are  clearly  told, 
the  "Infirmary"  was  also  under  the  Parliament 
Chamber,  and  was  approximately  one-third  the  size 
of  the  latter.1  Accordingly  I  have  interpreted  the 
phrase, "  of  the  same  length  and  breadth,"  to  mean 
that  the  Parlor  was  square.  When  the  room  was 
sold  to  Burbage  it  was  said  to  be  fifty-two  feet  in 
length  from  north  to  south,  which  is  exactly  the 
breadth  of  the  building  from  east  to  west.  The 
Parlor,  as  well  as  the  Hall,  was  claimed  by  the 
Lord  Warden;  and  both  were  granted  to  Sir 
Thomas  Cawarden  in  1550. 

South  of  the  Parlor  was  the  Infirmary,  described 
as  being  "  at  the  western  corner  of  the  Inner  Clois- 
ter" (of  which  the  Frater  building  constituted  the 
western  side),  as  being  under  the  Parliament 
Chamber,  and  as  being  approximately  one-third 
the  size  of  the  Parliament  Chamber.  The  Infirm- 
ary seems  to  have  been  structurally  distinct  from 

1  Feuillerat,  Blackfriars  Records,  pp.  105-06. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       189 

the  Hall  and  Parlor.1  It  was  three  stories  high,  con- 
sisting of  a  "room  beneath  the  Fermary,"  the  In- 
firmary itself,  a  "room  above  the  same";2  while 
the  Parliament  Chamber,  extending  itself  "over 
the  room  above  the  Fermary,"  constituted  a  fourth 
story.  Furthermore,  not  only  was  the  Infirmary  a 
structural  unit  distinct  from  the  Hall  and  the  Par- 
lor at  the  north,  but  it  never  belonged  to  Cawarden 
or  More,  and  hence  was  not  included  in  the  sale  to 
Burbage.  It  was  granted  in  1545  to  Lady  Mary 
Kingston,3  from  whom  it  passed  to  her  son,  Sir 
Henry  Jemingham,  then  to  Anthony  Kempe,  who 
later  sold  it  to  Lord  Hunsdon;4  and  at  the  time  the 
playhouse  was  built,  the  Infirmary  was  still  in  the 
occupation  of  Hunsdon. 

At  the  northern  end  of  the  Frater  building, 
and  extending  westward,  was  a  narrow  struc- 
ture fifty  feet  in  length,  sixteen  feet  in  breadth, 
and  three  stories  in  height,  regarded  as  a  "part  of 
the  frater  parcel."  The  middle  story,  which  was 
on  the  same  level  with  the  Parliament  Chamber, 
was  known  as  the  "Duchy  Chamber,"  possibly 
because  of  its  use  in  connection  with  the  sit- 
tings of  Parliament,  or  with  the  meetings  of  the 

1  In  all  probability  it  was  separated  from  the  Hall  and  Parlor 
by  a  passage  leading  through  the  Infirmary  into  the  Inner  Clois- 
ter yard. 

a  One  reason  for  the  greater  height  may  have  been  the  slope 
of  the  ground  towards  the  river;  a  second  reason  was  the  unusual 
height  of  the  Parlor. 

1  Feuillerat,  Blackfriars  Records,  p.  105.  4  Ibid.,  p.  124. 


i9o     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Privy  Council  there.   The  building  was  granted  to 
Cawarden  in  1550.1 

Upon  the  death  of  Cawarden  all  his  Blackfriars 
holdings  passed  into  the  possession  of  Sir  William 
More.  From  More,  in  1596,  James  Burbage  pur- 
chased those  sections  of  the  Frater  building  which 
had  originally  been  granted  to  Cawarden  2  —  that 
is,  all  the  Frater  building  except  the  Infirmary  — 
for  the  sum  of  £600,  in  modern  valuation  about 
$25, 000. 3  Evidently  he  had  profited  by  Farrant's 
experience  with  More  and  by  his  own  experience 
with  Gyles  Alleyn,  and  had  determined  to  risk  no 
more  leases,  but  in  the  future  to  be  his  own  land- 
lord, cost  what  it  might. 
The  properties  which  he  thus  secured  were : 
(1)  The  Parliament  Chamber,  extending  over 
the  Hall,  Parlor,  and  Infirmary.  This  great  cham- 
ber, it  will  be  recalled,  had  previously  been  divided 
by  Cawarden  into  the  Frith  and  Cheeke  Lodgings; 4 
but  now  it  was  arranged  as  a  single  tenement  of 
seven  rooms,  and  was  occupied  by  the  eminent 
physician  William  de  Lawne:6  "All  those  seven 

1  Feuillerat,  Blackfriars  Records,  p.  8. 

2  For  the  deed  of  sale  see  ibid.,  p.  60. 

3  It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  Burbage  paid  only 
£100  down,  and  that  he  immediately  mortgaged  the  property 
for  more  than  £200.  The  playhouse  was  not  free  from  debt  until 
1605.   See  Wallace,  The  First  London  Theatre,  p.  23. 

4  The  northern  section  of  the  Cheeke  Lodging  (a  portion  of 
the  old  Buttery)  which  had  constituted  Farrant's  private  theatre, 
and  which  was  no  real  part  of  the  Frater  building,  had  been 
converted  by  More  into  the  Pipe  Office. 

5  A  prosperous  physician.   His  son  was  one  of  the  illustrious 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       191 

great  upper  rooms  as  they  are  now  divided,  being 
all  upon  one  floor,  and  sometime  being  one  great 
and  entire  room,  with  the  roof  over  the  same,  cov- 
ered with  lead."  Up  into  this  tenement  led  a  special 
pair  of  stairs  which  made  it  wholly  independent 
of  the  rest  of  the  building. 

(2)  The  friar's  "Parlor,"  now  made  into  a  tene- 
ment occupied  by  Thomas  Bruskett,  and  called 
"the  Middle  Rooms,  or  Middle  Stories"  —  pos- 
sibly from  the  fact  that  it  was  the  middle  of  three 
tenements,  possibly  from  the  fact  that  having  two 
cellars  under  its  northern  end  it  was  the  middle  of 
three  stories.  It  is  described  as  being  fifty-two  feet 
in  length  north  and  south,  and  thirty-seven  feet 
in  width.  Why  a  strip  of  nine  feet  should  have  been 
detached  on  the  eastern  side  is  not  clear;  but  that 
this  strip  was  also  included  in  the  sale  to  Burbage 
is  shown  by  later  documents. 

(3)  The  ancient  "Hall"  adjoining  the  "Parlor" 
on  the  north,  and  now  made  into  two  rooms.  These 
rooms  were  combined  with  the  ground  floor  of  the 
Duchy  Chamber  building  to  constitute  a  tenement 
occupied  by  Peter  Johnson:  "All  those  two  lower 
rooms  now  in  the  occupation  of  the  said  Peter 
Johnson,  lying  directly  under  part  of  the  said 
seven  great  upper  rooms."  The  dimensions  are  not 

founders  of  the  Society  of  Apothecaries,  and  one  of  its  chief 
benefactors.  His  portrait  may  be  seen  to-day  in  Apothecaries' 
Hall.  See  C.  R.  B.  Barrett,  The  History  of  the  Society  of  apothe- 
caries of  London. 


1 92     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

given,  but  doubtless  the  two  rooms  together  ex- 
tended the  entire  width  of  the  building  and  were 
approximately  as  broad  as  the  Duchy  Chamber 
building,  with  which  they  were  united. 

(4)  The  Duchy  Chamber  building  "at  the  north 
end  of  the  said  seven  great  upper  rooms,  and  at  the 
west  side  thereof."  At  the  time  of  the  sale  the 
ground  floor  of  this  building  was  occupied  by  Peter 
Johnson,  who  had  also  the  Hall  adjoining  it  on  the 
west;  the  middle  story  was  occupied  by  Charles 
Bradshaw;  and  the  top  story  by  Edward  Merry.1 

Out  of  this  heterogeneous  property  Burbage 
was  confronted  with  the  problem  of  making  a 
playhouse.  Apparently  he  regarded  the  Parliament 
Chamber  as  too  low,  or  too  inaccessible  for  the 
purposes  of  a  theatre;  this  part  of  his  property, 
therefore,  he  kept  as  a  lodging,  and  for  many  years 
it  served  as  a  dormitory  for  the  child-actors.  The 
Duchy  Chamber  building,  being  small  and  de- 
tached from  the  Frater  building,  he  reserved  also 
as  a  lodging.2  In  the  Hall  and  the  Parlor,  however, 

1  Mr.  Wallace's  description  of  the  building  and  the  way  in 
which  it  was  converted  into  a  playhouse  (The  Children  of  the 
Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  pp.  37-41)  is  incorrect.  For  the  various 
details  cited  above  see  the  deed  of  sale  to  Burbage. 

2  This  may  have  contained  the  two  rooms  in  which  Evans 
lived,  and  "the  schoolhouse  and  the  chamber  over  the  same," 
which  are  described  (see  the  documents  in  Fleay's  A  Chronicle 
History  of  the  London  Stage,  p.  210  ff.)  as  being  "severed  from 
the  said  great  hall."  In  another  document  this  schoolhouse  is 
described  as  "schola,  anglice  schoolhouse,  ad  borealem  finem 
Aulse  prsedictse."  (Wallace,  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Black- 
friars, p.  40.) 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       193 

he  saw  the  possibility  of  a  satisfactory  auditorium. 
Let  us  therefore  examine  this  section  of  the  Frater 
building  more  in  detail,  and  trace  its  history  up  to 
the  time  of  the  purchase. 

The  Parlor  was  described  as  "a  great  room, 
paved,"  and  was  said  to  have  been  "used  and  occu- 
pied by  the  friars  themselves  to  their  own  proper 
use  as  a  parlor  to  dine  and  sup  in."1  Sir  John 
Portynary,  whose  house  adjoined  the  Duchy 
Chamber,  tells  us  that  in  1550,  when  King  Ed- 
ward granted  the  Blackfriars  property  to  Cawar- 
den,  "Sir  Thomas  Cawarden,  knight,  entered  into 
the  same  house  in  the  name  of  all  that  which  the 
King  had  given  him  within  the  said  friars,  and 
made  his  lodging  there;  and  about  that  time  did 
invite  this  examinant  and  his  wife  to  supper  there, 
together  with  diverse  other  gentlemen;  and  they 
all  supped  together  with  the  said  Sir  Thomas  Ca- 
warden, in  the  same  room  [the  Parlor]  where  the 
said  school  of  fence  is  now  kept,  and  did  there  see 
a  play."  2 

Later  Cawarden  leased  the  Parlor  to  a  keeper  of 
an  ordinary:  "One  Woodman  did  hold  the  said 
house  where  the  said  school  of  fence  is  kept,  and 
another  house  thereby  of  Sir  Thomas  Cawarden, 
and  in  the  other  room  kept  an  ordinary  table,  and 
had  his  way  to  the  same  through  the  said  house 
where  the  said  school  of  fence  is  kept."  3 

1  Feuillerat,  Blackfriars  Records,  pp.  43,  47,  48. 

2  Ibid.t  p.  52.  *  Ibid.,  p.  51. 


i94    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

In  1563  William  Joyner  established  in  the  rooms 
the  school  of  fence  mentioned  above,  which  was 
still  nourishing  in  1576.1 

When  in  1583  John  Lyly  became  interested  in 
the  First  Blackfriars  Playhouse,  he  obtained  a  lease 
of  the  rooms,  but  it  is  not  clear  for  what  pur- 
pose. Later  he  sold  the  lease  to  Rocho  Bonetti,  the 
Italian  fencing-master,  who  established  there  his 
famous  school  of  fence.2  In  George  Silver's  Para- 
doxes of  Defence,  1599,  is  a  description  of  Bonetti's 
school,  which  will,  I  think,  help  us  to  reconstruct 
in  our  imagination  the  "great  room,  paved"  which 
was  destined  to  become  Shakespeare's  playhouse: 

He  caused  to  be  fairely  drawne  and  set  round 
about  the  schoole  all  the  Noblemen's  and  Gentle- 
men's Armes  that  were  his  schollers,  and,  hanging 
right  under  their  Armes,  their  Rapiers,  Daggers, 
Gloves  of  Male,  and  Gantlets.  Also  he  had  benches 
and  stooles,  the  roome  being  verie  large,  for  Gentle- 
men to  sit  about  his  schoole  to  behold  his  teaching. 

He  taught  none  commonly  under  twentie,  fortie, 
fifty,  or  an  hundred  pounds.  And  because  all  things 
should  be  verie  necessary  for  the  Noblemen  and 
Gentlemen,  he  had  in  his  schoole  a  large  square 
table,  with  a  green  carpet,  done  round  with  a  verie 
brode  rich  fringe  of  gold;  alwaies  standing  upon  it  a 
verie  faire  standish  covered  with  crimson  velvet, 
with  inke,  pens,  pen-dust,  and  sealing-waxe,  and 
quiers  of  verie  excellent  fine  paper,  gilded,  readie 
for  the  Noblemen  and  Gentlemen  (upon  occasion) 
to  write  their  letters,  being  then  desirous  to  follow 

1  Feuillerat,  Blackfriars  Records,  p.  121.         2  Ibid.,  p.  122. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       195 

their  fight,  to  send  their  men  to  dispatch  their  busi- 
nesse. 

And  to  know  how  the  time  passed,  he  had  in  one 
corner  of  his  Schoole,  a  Clocke,  with  a  verie  faire 
large  diall;  he  had  within  that  Schoole  a  roome  the 
which  he  called  his  privie  schoole,  with  manie 
weapons  therein,  where  he  did  teach  his  schollers 
his  secret  fight,  after  he  had  perfectly  taught  them 
their  rules.   He  was  verie  much  loved  in  the  Court. 

We  are  further  told  by  Silver  that  Bonetti  took 
it  upon  himself  "to  hit  anie  Englishman  with  a 
thrust  upon  anie  button."  It  is  no  wonder  that 
Shakespeare  ridiculed  him  in  Romeo  and  Juliet  as 
"  the  very  butcher  of  a  silk  button,"  and  laughed  at 
his  school  and  his  fantastic  fencing-terms : 

Mercutio.  Ah!  the  immortal  "passado"!  the  "punto 
reverso"!  the  "hay"! 

Benvolio.  The  what? 

Mercutio.  The  pox  of  such  antick,  lisping,  affecting 
fantasticoes!  These  new  tuners  of  accents! —  "By  Jesu, 
a  very  good  blade!" 

At  the  date  of  the  sale  to  Burbage,  February  4, 
1596,  the  fencing  school  of  Bonetti,  had  become 
"those  rooms  and  lodgings,  with  the  kitchen  there- 
unto adjoining,  called  the  Middle  Rooms  or  Mid- 
dle Stories,  late  being  in  the  tenure  or  occupation 
of  Rocco  Bonetti,  and  now  being  in  the  tenure  or 
occupation  of  Thomas  Bruskett,  gentleman." 

To  make  his  playhouse  Burbage  removed  all  the 
partitions  in  the  Middle  Rooms,  and  restored  the 
Parlor  to  its  original  form  —  a  great  room  covering 
the  entire  breadth  of  the  building,  and  extending 


196     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

fifty-two  feet  in  length  from  north  to  south.  To 
this  he  added  the  Hall  at  the  north,  which  then  ex- 
isted as  two  rooms  in  the  occupation  of  Peter  John- 
son. The  Hall  and  Parlor  when  combined  made  an 
auditorium  described  as  "per  estimacionem  in 
longitudine  ab  australe  ad  borealem  partem  eius- 
dem  sexaginta  et  sex  pedes  assissse  sit  plus  sive 
minus,  et  in  latitudine  ab  occidentale  ad  orienta- 
lem  partem  eiusdem  quadraginto  et  sex  pedes  as- 
sissse sit  plus  sive  minus."  *  The  forty-six  feet  of 
width  corresponds  to  the  interior  width  of  the 
Frater  building,  for  although  it  was  fifty-two  feet 
wide  in  outside  measurement,  the  stone  walls  were 
three  feet  thick.  The  sixty-six  feet  of  length  prob- 
ably represents  the  fifty-two  feet  of  the  Parlor  plus 
the  breadth  of  the  Hall. 

The  ceiling  of  these  two  rooms  must  have  been 
of  unusual  height.  The  Infirmary,  which  was  below 
the  Parliament  Chamber  at  the  south,  was  three 
stories  high;  and  the  windows  of  the  Parlor,  if  we 
may  believe  Pierce  the  Ploughman,  were  "wrought 
as  a  chirche": 

An  halle  for  an  heygh  kinge  •  an  household  to  holden, 
With  brode  bordes  abouten  -y-benched  well  clene, 
With  windowes  of  glas  •  wrought  as  a  chirche. 

As  a  result  Burbage  was  able  to  construct  within 
the  auditorium  at  least  two  galleries,2  after  the 

1  Wallace,  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  39,  note  I. 

*  Mr.  Wallace,  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  42, 
quotes  from  the  Epilogue  to  Marston's  The  Dutch  Courtesan, 
acted  at  Blackfriars,  "And  now,  my  fine  Heliconian  gallants, 


'=  S   I 


a      9 

ft  a  C 

ill 


"3  is 


•flea 


M     -=1.2 


8  «j  S 


"*    X   tr  s 


r-  = 
I  2 


—   —  _   = 


■ta    —    □ 


■>    .  q 


-  MM 

-  3s  ~E 
3  '5  5 


J3*3   «« 


&  3 


i-B 


m  -  = 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       197 

manner  of  the  public  theatres.  The  Parliament 
Chamber  above  was  kept,  as  I  have  stated,  for  resi- 
dential purposes.  This  is  why  the  various  legal 
documents  almost  invariably  refer  to  the  playhouse 
as  "that  great  hall  or  room,  with  the  rooms  over 
the  same."  l 

The  main  entrance  to  the  playhouse  was  at  the 
north,  over  the  "great  yard"  which  extended  from 
the  Pipe  Office  to  Water  Lane.2  The  stage  was  op- 
posite this  entrance,  or  at  the  southern  end  of  the 
hall,  as  is  shown  by  one  of  the  documents  printed 
by  Mr.  Wallace.3  Since  the  building  was  not,  like 
the  other  playhouses  of  London,  open  to  the  sky, 
the  illumination  was  supplied  by  candles,  hung  in 
branches  over  the  stage;  as  Gerschow  noted,  after 
visiting  Blackfriars,  "alle  bey  Lichte  agiret, 
welches  ein  gross  Ansehen  macht." 4  The  obvious 
advantage  of  artificial  light  for  producing  beautiful 
stage  effects  must  have  added  not  a  little  to  the 
popularity  of  the  Blackfriars  Playhouse. 

and  you,  my  worshipful  friends  in  the  middle  region,"  and 
adds  that  the  "reference  to  'the  middle  region'  makes  it  clear 
there  were  three"  galleries.  Does  it  not,  however,  indicate  that 
there  were  only  two  galleries? 

1  See  the  documents  printed  in  Fleay's  A  Chronicle  History  of 
the  London  Stage,  pp.  211,  215,  240,  etc.  Mr.  Wallace,  however 
(The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  40  ff.),  would  have 
us  believe  that  an  additional  story  was  added:  "the  roof  was 
changed,  and  rooms,  probably  of  the  usual  dormer  sort,  were 
built  above."    I  am  quite  sure  he  is  mistaken. 

*  Cf.  Playhouse  Yard  in  the  London  of  to-day. 

1  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  43,  note  3. 

4  The  Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stettin-Pomerania,  in  Transactions 
of  the  Royal  Historical  Society  (1892),  vi,  26. 


198     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

The  cost  of  all  the  alterations  and  the  equipment 
could  hardly  have  been  less  than  £300,  so  that  the 
total  cost  of  the  property  was  at  least  £900,  or  in 
modern  valuation  approximately  #35,000.  Bur- 
bage's  sons,  in  referring  to  the  building  years  later, 
declared  that  their  father  had  "made  it  into  a  play- 
house with  great  charge." 

"And,"  they  added  significantly,  "with  great 
trouble."  The  aristocratic  inhabitants  of  the 
Blackfriars  precinct  did  not  welcome  the  appear- 
ance in  their  midst  of  a  "public,"  or,  as  some  more 
scornfully  designated  it,  a  "common,"  playhouse; 
and  when  they  discovered  the  intentions  of  Bur- 
bage,  they  wrote  a  strong  petition  to  the  Privy 
Council  against  the  undertaking.  This  petition, 
presented  to  the  Council  in  November,  1596,  I 
quote  below  in  part : 

To  the  right  honorable  the  Lords  and  others  of 
Her  Majesty's  most  honorable  Privy  Council.  — 
Humbly  shewing  and  beseeching  your  honors,  the 
inhabitants  of  the  precinct  of  the  Blackfriars,  Lon- 
don, that  whereas  one  Burbage  hath  lately  bought 
certain  rooms  in  the  same  precinct  near  adjoining 
unto  the  dwelling  houses  of  the  right  honorable  the 
Lord  Chamberlaine  [Lord  Cobham]  and  the  Lord 
of  Hunsdon,  which  rooms  the  said  Burbage  is  now 
altering,  and  meaneth  very  shortly  to  convert  and 
turn  the  same  into  a  common  playhouse,  which  will 
grow  to  be  a  very  great  annoyance  and  trouble,  not 
only  to  all  the  noblemen  and  gentlemen  thereabout 
inhabiting,  but  also  a  general  inconvenience  to  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  same  precinct,  both  by  rea- 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       199 

son  of  the  great  resort  and  gathering  together  of  all 
manner  of  vagrant  and  lewd  persons  ...  as  also  for 
that  there  hath  not  at  any  time  heretofore  been  used 
any  common  playhouse  within  the  same  precinct,  but 
that  now  all  players  being  banished  by  the  Lord 
Mayor  from  playing  within  the  city  .  .  .  they  now 
think  to  plant  themselves  in  liberties,  etc.1 

The  first  person  to  sign  the  petition  was  the 
Dowager  Lady  Elizabeth  Russell;  the  second  was 
none  other  than  George  Cary,  Lord  Hunsdon,  at 
the  time  the  patron  of  Burbage's  company  of  ac- 
tors.2 It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  as  a  result 
of  this  petition  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council  (of 
which  Lord  Cobham  was  a  conspicuous  member) 
issued  an  order  in  which  they  "forbad  the  use  of 
the  said  house  for  plays."  3  This  order  wrecked 
the  plans  of  Burbage  quite  as  effectively  as  did  the 
stubbornness  of  Gyles  Alleyn. 

Possibly  the  mental  distress  Burbage  suffered  at 
the  hands  of  the  Privy  Council  and  of  Gyles  Alleyn 
affected  his  health;  at  least  he  did  not  long  survive 
this  last  sling  of  fortune.  In  February,  1597,  just 
before  the  expiration  of  the  Alleyn  lease,  he  died, 
leaving  the  Theatre  to  his  son  Cuthbert,  the  book- 
seller, Blackfriars  to  his  actor-son,  Richard,  the 
star  of  Shakespeare's  troupe,  and  his  troubles  to 

1  For  the  full  document  see  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  i,  304. 
For  the  date,  see  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  91. 

2  Shortly  after  this  he  was  appointed  Lord  Chamberlain, 
under  which  name  his  troupe  was  subsequently  known. 

'  Petition  of  1619,  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  I,  91. 


ioo     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

both.  With  good  reason  Cuthbert  declared  many 
years  later  that  the  ultimate  success  of  London 
theatres  had  "been  purchased  by  the  infinite  cost 
and  pains  of  the  family  of  Burbages." 

When  later  in  1597  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
Players  were  forced  to  leave  Cuthbert's  Theatre, 
Richard  Burbage  was  not  able  to  establish  them  in 
his  comfortable  Blackfriars  house;  instead,  they 
first  went  to  the  old  Curtain  in  Shoreditch,  and 
then,  under  the  leadership  of  the  Burbage  sons, 
erected  for  themselves  a  brand-new  home  on  the 
Bankside,  called  "The  Globe." 

The  order  of  the  Privy  Council  had  summarily 
forbidden  the  use  of  Blackfriars  as  a  "public" 
playhouse.  Its  proprietor,  however,  Richard  Bur- 
bage, might  take  advantage  of  the  precedent  estab- 
lished in  the  days  of  Farrant,  and  let  the  building 
for  use  as  a  "private"  theatre.1  Exactly  when  he 
was  first  able  to  lease  the  building  as  a  "private" 
house  we  do  not  know,  for  the  history  of  the  build- 
ing between  1597  (when  it  was  completed)  and 
1600  (when  it  was  certainly  occupied  by  the  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chapel)  is  very  indistinct.  We  have  no 
definite  evidence  to  connect  the  Chapel  Children, 
or,  indeed,  any  specific  troupe,  with  Blackfriars 
during  these  years.  Yet  prior  to  1600  the  building 
seems  to  have  been  used  for  acting.  Richard  Bur- 

1  The  constables  and  other  officers  in  the  Petition  of  1619  say: 
"The  owner  of  the  said  playhouse,  doth  under  the  name  of  a 
private  house  .  .  .  convert  the  said  house  to  a  public  playhouse." 
(The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  91.) 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       201 

bage  himself  seems  to  say  so.  In  leasing  the  build- 
ing to  Evans,  in  1600,  he  says  that  he  considered 
"with  himself  that"  Evans  could  not  pay  the  rent 
"except  the  said  Evans  could  erect  and  keep  a 
company  of  playing-boys  or  others  to  play  plays 
and  interludes  in  the  said  playhouse  in  such  sort  as 
before  time  had  been  there  used.11  l  Now,  unless  this 
refers  to  Farrant's  management  of  the  Chapel 
Boys  in  Blackfriars  —  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century 
earlier  —  it  means  that  before  1600  some  actors, 
presumably  "playing-boys,"  had  used  Burbage's 
theatre.  Moreover,  there  seems  to  be  evidence  to 
show  that  the  troupe  thus  vaguely  referred  to  was 
under  the  management  of  Evans;  for,  in  referring 
to  his  lease  of  Blackfriars  in  1600,  Evans  describes 
the  playhouse  as  "then  or  late  in  the  tenure  or  oc- 
cupation of  your  said  oratour."  2  What  these 
vague  references  mean  we  cannot  now  with  our 
limited  knowledge  determine.  But  there  is  not 
sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  the  usual  assumption 
that  Evans  and  Giles  had  opened  the  Blackfriars 
with  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  in  1597.3 

The  known  history  of  Blackfriars  as  a  regular 
theatre  may  be  said  to  begin  in  the  autumn  of  1600. 
On  September  2  of  that  year,  Henry  Evans  signed 
a  lease  of  the  playhouse  for  a  period  of  twenty-one 
years,  at  an  annual  rental  of  £40.  This  interesting 

1  Fleay,  A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  p.  234. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  211. 

•  This  theory  has  been  urcred  by  Fleay,  by  Mr.  Wallace  in  The 
Children  0/  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  and  by  others. 


202     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

step  on  the  part  of  Evans  calls  for  a  word  of  expla- 
nation as  to  his  plans. 

The  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal,  who  had  at- 
tained such  glory  at  Blackfriars  during  the  Farrant- 
Hunnis-Evans-Oxford-Lyly  regime,  had  thereafter 
sunk  into  dramatic  insignificance.  Since  1584, 
when  Lyly  was  forced  to  give  up  his  playhouse, 
they  had  not  presented  a  play  at  Court.  Probably 
they  did  not  entirely  cease  to  act,  for  they  can  be 
vaguely  traced  in  the  provinces  during  a  part  of 
this  period;  but  their  dramatic  glory  was  almost 
wholly  eclipsed.  Evans,  who  had  managed  the 
Boys  under  Hunnis,  Oxford,  and  Lyly,  hoped  now 
to  reestablish  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Black- 
friars as  they  had  been  in  his  younger  days.  Like 
James  Burbage,  he  was  a  man  of  ideas.  His  plan 
was  to  interest  in  his  undertaking  the  Master  of 
the  Chapel,  Nathaniel  Giles,  who  had  succeeded 
to  the  office  at  the  death  of  Hunnis  in  1597,  and 
then  to  make  practical  use  of  the  patent  granted  to 
the  Masters  of  the  Children  to  take  up  boys  for  Her 
Majesty's  service.  Such  a  patent,  in  the  normal 
course  of  events,  had  been  granted  to  Giles,  as  it 
had  been  to  his  predecessors.  It  read  in  part  as 
follows : 

Elizabeth,  by  the  grace  of  God,  &c,  to  all  mayors, 
sheriffs,  bailiffs,  constables,  and  all  other  our  offi- 
cers, greeting.  For  that  it  is  meet  that  our  Chapel 
Royal  should  be  furnished  with  well-singing  chil- 
dren from  time  to  time,  we  have,  and  by  these  pres- 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      203 

ents  do  authorize  our  well-beloved  servant,  Nathan- 
iel Giles,  Master  of  our  Children  of  our  said  Chapel, 
or  his  deputy,  being  by  his  bill  subscribed  and  sealed, 
so  authorized,  and  having  this  our  present  commission 
with  him,  to  take  such  and  so  many  children  as  he, 
or  his  sufficient  deputy,  shall  think  meet,  in  all 
cathedral,  collegiate,  parish  churches,  chapels,  or 
any  other  place  or  places,  as  well  within  liberty  as 
without,  within  this  our  realm  of  England,  whatso- 
ever they  be.1 

In  such  a  commission  Evans  saw  wonderful  pos- 
sibilities. He  reasoned  that  since  the  Queen  had 
forced  upon  the  Chapel  Children  the  twofold  ser- 
vice of  singing  at  royal  worship  and  of  acting  plays 
for  royal  entertainment,  this  twofold  service  should 
be  met  by  a  twofold  organization,  the  one  part  de- 
signed mainly  to  furnish  sacred  music,  the  other 
designed  mainly  to  furnish  plays.  Such  a  dual  or- 
ganization, it  seemed  to  him,  was  now  more  or  less 
necessary,  since  the  number  of  boy  choristers  in  the 
Chapel  Royal  was  limited  to  twelve,  whereas  the 
acting  of  plays  demanded  at  least  twice  as  many. 
Once  the  principle  that  the  Chapel  Royal  should 
supply  the  Queen  with  plays  was  granted,  the  com- 
mission could  be  used  to  furnish  the  necessary  ac- 
tors; and  the  old  fiction,  established  by  Farrant 
and  Hunnis,  of  using  a  "private"  playhouse  as  a 
means  of  exercising  or  training  the  boys  for  Court 
service,  would  enable  the  promoters  to  give  public 

1  The  full  commission  is  printed  in  Wallace,  The  Children  oj 
tht  Chapel  at  Black/riars,  p.  6l. 


204     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

performances  and  thus  handsomely  reimburse 
themselves  for  their  trouble. 

Such  was  Evans's  scheme,  based  upon  his  former 
experience  with  the  Children  at  Farrant's  Black- 
friars,  and  suggested,  perhaps,  by  the  existence  of 
Burbage's  Blackfriars  now  forbidden  to  the  "com- 
mon" players.  He  presented  his  scheme  to  Giles, 
the  Master  of  the  Children;  and  Giles,  no  doubt, 
presented  it  at  Court;  for  he  would  hardly  dare 
thus  abuse  the  Queen's  commission,  or  thus  make 
a  public  spectacle  of  the  royal  choristers,  without 
in  some  way  first  consulting  Her  Majesty,  and  se- 
curing at  least  her  tacit  consent.  That  Giles  and 
Evans  did  secure  royal  permission  to  put  their 
scheme  into  operation  is  certain,  although  the 
exact  nature  of  this  permission  is  not  clear.  Later, 
for  misdemeanors  on  the  part  of  the  management, 
the  Star  Chamber  ordered  "that  all  assurances 
made  to  the  said  Evans  concerning  the  said  house, 
or  plays,  or  interludes,  should  be  utterly  void,  and 
to  be  delivered  up  to  be  cancelled."  x 

Armed  with  these  written  "assurances,"  and 
with  the  royal  commission  to  take  up  children, 
Evans  and  Giles  began  to  form  their  company. 
This  explains  the  language  used  by  Heminges  and 
Burbage:  "let  the  said  playhouse  unto  Henry 
Evans  .  .  .  who  intended  then  presently  to  erect 
or  set  up  a  company  of  boys."  2  Their  method  of 

1  Fleay,  A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  p.  248. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  234.  Note  that  Evans  is  not  to  "continue"  a  troupe 
there,  as  Fleay  and  Wallace  believe,  but  to  "erect"  one. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      205 

recruiting  players  may  best  be  told  by  Henry  Clif- 
ton, in  his  complaint  to  the  Queen: 

But  so  it  is,  most  excellent  Sovereign,  that  the 
said  Nathaniel  Giles,  confederating  himself  with 
one  James  Robinson,  Henry  Evans,  and  others,1 
yet  unto  Your  Majesty's  said  subject  unknown  how 
[many],  by  color  of  Your  Majesty's  said  letters 
patents,  and  the  trust  by  Your  Highness  thereby 
to  him,  the  said  Nathaniel  Giles,  committed,  en- 
deavoring, conspiring,  and  complotting  how  to 
oppress  diverse  of  Your  Majesty's  humble  and 
faithful  subjects,  and  thereby  to  make  unto  them- 
selves an  unlawful  gain  and  benefit,  they,  the  said 
confederates,  devised,  conspired,  and  concluded, 
for  their  own  corrupt  gain  and  lucre,  to  erect,  set 
up,  furnish,  and  maintain  a  playhouse,  or  place  in 
the  Blackfriars,  within  Your  Majesty's  city  of  Lon- 
don; and  to  the  end  they  might  the  better  fur- 
nish their  said  plays  and  interludes  with  children, 
whom  they  thought  most  fittest  to  act  and  furnish 
the  said  plays,  they,  the  said  confederates,  abusing 
the  authority  and  trust  by  Your  Highness  to  him,  the 
said  Nathaniel  Giles,  and  his  deputy  or  deputies, 
by  Your  Highness's  said  letters  patents  given  and 
reposed,  hath,  sithence  Your  Majesty's  last  free 
and  general  pardon,  most  wrongfully,  unduly,  and 
unjustly  taken  diverse  and  several  children  from  di- 
verse and  sundry  schools  of  learning  and  other  places, 
and  apprentices  to  men  of  trade  from  their  masters, 
no  way  fitting  for  Your  Majesty's  service  in  or  for 
your  Chapel  Royal,  but  the  children  have  so  taken 
and  employed  in  acting  and  furnishing  of  the  said 
plays  and  interludes,  so  by  them  complotted  and 

1  Possibly  Robinson  and  the  "others"  were  merely  deputies. 


206     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

agreed  to  be  erected,  furnished,  and  maintained, 
against  the  wills  of  the  said  children,  their  parents, 
tutors,  masters,  and  governors,  and  to  the  no  small 
grief  and  oppressions  [of]  Your  Majesty's  true  and 
faithful  subjects.  Amongst  which  numbers,  so  by  the 
persons  aforesaid  and  their  agents  so  unjustly  taken, 
used  and  employed,  they  have  unduly  taken  and  so 
employed  one  John  Chappell,  a  grammar  school 
scholar  of  one  Mr.  Spykes  School  near  Cripplegate, 
London;  John  Motteram,  a  grammar  scholar  in  the 
free  school  at  Westminster;  Nathaniel  Field,  a  scholar 
of  a  grammar  school  in  London  kept  by  one  Mr. 
Monkaster; 1  Alvery  Trussell,  an  apprentice  to  one 
Thomas  Gyles;  one  Phillipp  Pykman  and  [one] 
Thomas  Grymes,  apprentices  to  Richard  and  George 
Chambers;  Salmon  Pavy,2  apprentice  to  one  Peerce; 
being  children  no  way  able  or  fit  for  singing,  nor  by 
any  the  said  confederates  endeavoured  to  be  taught 
to  sing,  but  by  them,  the  said  confederates,  abusively 
employed,  as  aforesaid,  only  in  plays  and  interludes.3 

In  spite  of  the  obvious  animosity  inspiring  Clif- 
ton's words,  we  get  from  his  complaint  a  clear 
notion  of  how  Evans  and  Giles  supplemented  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel  proper  with  actors.  In  a 
short  time  they  brought  together  at  Blackfriars  a 
remarkable  troupe  of  boy-players,  who,  with  Jonson 
and  Chapman  as  their  poets,  began  to  astonish 
London.  For,  in  spite  of  certain  limitations,  "the 

1  Field  became  later  famous  both  as  an  actor  and  playwright. 
His  portrait  is  preserved  at  Dulwich  College. 

2  Salathiel  Pavy,  whose  excellent  acting  is  celebrated  in 
Jonson's  tender  elegy,  quoted  in  part  below. 

3  Star  Chamber  Proceedings,  printed  in  full  by  Fleay,  op.  cit., 
p.  127. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      207 

children"  could  act  with  a  charm  and  a  grace  that 
often  made  them  more  attractive  than  their 
grown-up  rivals.  Middleton  advises  the  London 
gallant  "to  call  in  at  the  Blackfriars,  where  he 
should  see  a  nest  of  boys  able  to  ravish  a  man."  l 
Jonson  gives  eloquent  testimony  to  the  power  of 
little  Salathiel  Pavy  to  portray  the  character  of 
old  age: 

Years  he  numbered  scarce  thirteen 

When  Fates  turned  cruel, 
Yet  three  filled  zodiacs  had  he  been 

The  stage's  jewel; 
And  did  act,  what  now  we  moan, 

Old  men  so  duly, 
As,  sooth,  the  Parcae  thought  him  one, 

He  played  so  truly.2 

And  Samuel  Pepys  records  the  effectiveness  of  a 
child-actor  in  the  role  of  women:  "One  Kinaston,  a 
boy,  acted  the  Duke's  sister,  but  made  the  loveliest 
lady  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life."  3 

Moreover,  to  expert  acting  these  Boys  of  the 
Chapel  Royal  added  the  charms  of  vocal  and  in- 
strumental music,  for  which  many  of  them  had 
been  specially  trained.  The  Duke  of  Stettin-Pom- 
erania,  who  upon  his  grand  tour  of  the  European 
countries  in  1602  attended  a  play  at  Blackfriars, 
bears  eloquent  testimony  to  the  musical  powers  of 
the  children:  "For  a  whole  hour  before  the  play 

1  Father  Hubbard's  Tales  (ed.  Bullen,  vm,  77). 
1  Jonson,  Epigrams,  cxx,  An  Epitaph   on    Salathiel  Pavy,  a 
Child  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  Chapel. 
*  Diary,  August  18,  1660. 


ao8     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

begins,  one  listens  to  charming  [kostliche]  instru- 
mental music  played  on  organs,  lutes,  pandorins, 
mandolins,  violins,  and  flutes;  as,  indeed,  on  this 
occasion,  a  boy  sang  cum  voce  tremula  to  the  accom- 
paniment of  a  bass-viol,  so  delightfully  [lieblich] 
that,  if  the  Nuns  at  Milan  did  not  excel  him,  we 
had  not  heard  his  equal  in  our  travels."  *  In  addi- 
tion, the  Children  were  provided  with  splendid 
apparel  —  though  not  at  the  cost  of  the  Queen,  as 
Mr.  Wallace  contends.2  Naturally  they  became 
popular.  On  January  6, 1601,  they  were  summoned 
to  Court  to  entertain  Her  Majesty  —  the  first 
recorded  performance  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
at  Court  since  the  year  1584,  when  Sir  William 
More  closed  the  first  Blackfriars. 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  testimony  to  the 
success  of  the  Chapel  Children  in  their  new  play- 
house is  that  uttered  by  Shakespeare  in  Hamlet 
(1601),  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  performances  by 
the  "little  eyases"  as  a  "late  innovation."  The 
success  of  the  "innovation"  had  driven  Shake- 

1  The  Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stettin-Pomerania,  printed  in  Trans- 
actions of  the  Royal  Historical  Society  (1890).  The  diary  was 
written  by  the  Duke's  tutor,  Gerschow,  at  the  express  command 
of  the  Duke. 

2  It  is  hard  to  believe  Mr.  Wallace's  novel  theory  that  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel  were  subsidized  by  Elizabeth,  as  pre- 
sented in  his  otherwise  valuable  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at 
Blackfriars.  Burbage  and  Heminges  knew  nothing  of  such  a 
royal  patronage  at  Blackfriars  (see  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  p.  236),  nor  did 
Kirkham,  the  Yeoman  of  the  Revels  (ibid.,  p.  248).  Kirkham 
and  his  partners  spent  £600  on  apparel,  etc.,  according  to  Kirk- 
ham's  statement. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      209 

speare  and  his  troupe  of  grown-up  actors  to  close 
the  Globe  and  travel  in  the  country,  even  though 
they  had   Hamlet  as  an  attraction.    The   good-  ^p- 
natured   way  in  which    Shakespeare   treats    the 
situation  is  worthy  of  special  observation : 

Ham.   What  players  are  they? 

Ros.  Even  those  you  were  wont  to  take  delight  in,  the 
tragedians  of  the  city.1 

Ham.  How  chances  it  they  travel?  their  residence,  both 
in  reputation  and  profit,  was  better  both  ways.2 

Ros.  I  think  their  inhibition  comes  by  means  of  the  late 
innovation. 

Ham.  Do  they  hold  the  same  estimation  they  did  when 
I  was  in  the  city?  are  they  so  followed? 

Ros.   No,  indeed,  they  are  not! 

Ham.   How  comes  it?  do  they  grow  rusty? 

Ros.  Nay,  their  endeavour  keeps  in  the  wonted  pace; 
but  there  is,  sir,  an  aerie  of  children,3  little  eyases,  that 
cry  out  on  the  top  of  question,  and  are  most  tyrannically 
clapped  for  't.  These  are  now  the  fashion,  and  so  be- 
rattle  the  "common  stages"  —  so  they  call  them  —  that 
many  wearing  rapiers  [i.e.,  gallants]  are  afraid  of  goose- 
quills,  and  dare  scarce  come  thither. 

Ham.  What!  are  they  children?  who  maintains  'em? 
how  are  they  escoted?  Will  they  pursue  the  quality  no 
longer  than  they  can  sing? 

The  passage  ends  with  the  question  from  Ham- 
let: "Do  the  boys  carry  it  away?"  which  gives 
Rosencrantz  an  opportunity  to  pun  on  the  sign  of 

1  The  Children  were  acting  light  comedies  such  as  Cynthia's 
Revels;  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Men  were  acting  Hamlet. 

2  Shakespeare's  troupe  is  known  to  have  been  traveling  in  the 
spring  of  1601. 

*  Cf.  Middleton's  Father  Hubbard's  Tales,  already  quoted,  "a 
nest  of  boys."  Possibly  the  idea  was  suggested  by  the  fact  that 
the  children  were  lodged  and  fed  in  the  building. 


210    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

the  Globe  Playhouse:  "Ay,  that  they  do,  my  lord; 
Hercules  and  his  load,  too." 

Shortly  after  the  great  dramatist  had  penned 
these  words,  the  management  of  Blackfriars  met 
with  disaster.  The  cause,  however,  went  back  to 
December  13,  1600,  when  Giles  and  Evans  were 
gathering  their  players.  In  their  overweening  con- 
fidence they  made  a  stupid  blunder  in  "taking  up" 
for  their  troupe  the  only  son  and  heir  of  Henry 
Clifton,  a  well-to-do  gentleman  of  Norfolk,  who  had 
come  to  London  for  the  purpose  of  educating  the 
boy.  Clifton  says  in  his  complaint  that  Giles,  Evans, 
and  their  confederates,  "well  knowing  that  your 
subject's  said  son  had  no  manner  of  sight  in  song, 
nor  skill  in  music,"  on  the  13  th  day  of  December, 
1600,  did  "waylay  the  said  Thomas  Clifton"  as  he 
was  "walking  quietly  from  your  subject's  said 
house  towards  the  said  school,"  and  "with  great 
force  and  violence  did  seize  and  surprise,  and  him 
with  like  force  and  violence  did,  to  the  great  terror 
and  hurt  of  him,  the  said  Thomas  Clifton,  haul, 
pull,  drag,  and  carry  away  to  the  said  playhouse." 
As  soon  as  the  father  learned  of  this,  he  hurried  to 
the  playhouse  and  "made  request  to  have  his  said 
son  released."  But  Giles  and  Evans  "utterly  and 
scornfully  refused  to  do"  this.  Whereupon  Clifton 
threatened  to  complain  to  the  Privy  Council.  But 
Evans  and  Giles  "in  very  scornful  manner  willed 
your  said  subject  to  complain  to  whom  he  would." 
Clifton  suggested  that  "it  was  not  fit  that  a  gentle- 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      211 

man  of  his  sort  should  have  his  son  and  heir  (and 
that  his  only  son)  to  be  so  basely  used."  Giles  and 
Evans  "most  arrogantly  then  and  there  answered 
that  they  had  authority  sufficient  so  to  take  any 
nobleman's  son  in  this  land";  and  further  to  irri- 
tate the  father,  they  immediately  put  into  young 
Thomas's  hand  "a  scroll  of  paper,  containing  part 
of  one  of  their  said  plays  or  interludes,  and  him,  the 
said  Thomas  Clifton,  commanded  to  learn  the 
same  by  heart,"  with  the  admonition  that  "if  he 
did  not  obey  the  said  Evans,  he  should  be  surely 
whipped."  1 

Clifton  at  once  appealed  to  his  friend,  Sir  John 
Fortescue,  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council,  at  whose 
order  young  Thomas  was  released  and  sent  back  to 
his  studies.  Apparently  this  ended  the  episode. 
But  Clifton,  nourishing  his  animosity,  began  to 
investigate  the  management  of  Blackfriars,  and  to 
collect  evidence  of  similar  abuses  of  the  Queen's 
commission,  with  the  object  of  making  complaint 
to  the  Star  Chamber.  In  October,  1601,  Evans,  it 
seems,  learned  of  Clifton's  purpose,  for  on  the  21st 
of  that  month  he  deeded  all  his  property  to  his  son- 
in-law,  Alexander  Hawkins.2  Clifton  finally  pre- 
sented his  complaint  to  the  Star  Chamber  on  De- 
cember 15,  1601,3  but  his  complaint  was  probably 
not  acted  on  until  early  in  1602,  for  during  the 

1  The  full  complaint  is  printed  by  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  p.  127. 
1  Ibid.,  pp.  244-45. 

*  Wallace,  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  84, 
note  4. 


212     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Christmas  holidays  the  Children  were  summoned 
as  usual  to  present  their  play  before  the  Queen.1 

Shortly  after  this,  however,  the  Star  Chamber 
passed  on  Clifton's  complaint.  The  decree  itself  is 
lost,  but  the  following  reference  to  it  is  made  in  a 
subsequent  lawsuit:  "The  said  Evans  .  .  .  was 
censured  by  the  right  honorable  Court  of  Star 
Chamber  for  his  unorderly  carriage  and  behaviour 
in  taking  up  of  gentlemen's  children  against  their 
wills  and  to  employ  them  for  players,  and  for  other 
misdemeanors  in  the  said  Decree  contained;  and 
further  that  all  assurances  made  to  the  said  Evans 
concerning  the  said  house  or  plays  or  interludes 

1  On  December  29,  1601,  Sir  Dudley  Carleton  wrote  to  his 
friend  John  Chamberlain:  "The  Queen  dined  this  day  privately 
at  My  Lord  Chamberlain's.  I  came  even  now  from  the  Black- 
friars,  where  I  saw  her  at  the  play  with  all  her  Candida  auditrices." 
From  this  it  has  been  generally  assumed  that  Elizabeth  visited 
the  playhouse  in  Blackfriars  to  see  the  Children  act  there;  and 
Mr.  Wallace,  in  his  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  pp. 
26,  87,  95-97,  lays  great  emphasis  upon  it  to  show  that  the  Queen 
was  directly  responsible  for  establishing  and  managing  the  Chil- 
dren at  Blackfriars.  But  the  assumption  that  the  Queen  attended 
a  performance  at  the  Blackfriars  Playhouse  is,  I  think,  unwar- 
ranted. The  Lord  Chamberlain  at  this  time  was  Lord  Hunsdon, 
who  lived  "  in  the  Blackfriars."  No  doubt  on  this  Christmas  occa- 
sion he  entertained  the  Queen  with  a  great  dinner,  and  after  the 
dinner  with  a  play  given,  not  in  a  playhouse,  but  in  his  mansion. 
(Lord  Cobham,  who  was  formerly  Lord  Chamberlain,  and  who 
also  lived  in  Blackfriars,  had  similarly  entertained  the  Queen 
with  plays  "in  Blackfriars";  cf.  also  The  Malone  Society's  Col- 
lections, 11,  52.)  Furthermore,  the  actors  on  this  occasion  were 
probably  not  the  Children  of  the  Chapel,  as  Mr.  Wallace  thinks, 
but  Lord  Hunsdon's  own  troupe.  Possibly  one  of  Shakespeare's 
new  plays  {Hamlet  ?)  was  then  presented  before  the  Queen  for  the 
first  time. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      213 

should  be  utterly  void,  and  to  be  delivered  up  to  be 
canceled."  1  Doubtless  the  decree  fell  with  equal 
force  upon  Giles  and  the  others  connected  with  the 
enterprise,  for  after  the  Star  Chamber  decree  Giles 
and  Robinson  disappear  from  the  management  of 
the  playhouse.  Evans  was  forbidden  to  have  any 
connection  with  plays  there;  and  for  a  time,  no 
doubt,  the  building  was  closed. 

Evans,  however,  still  held  the  lease,  and  was 
under  the  necessity  of  paying  the  rent  as  before. 
Then  came  forward  Edward  Kirkham,  who,  in  his 
official  capacity  as  Yeoman  of  the  Revels,  had  be- 
come acquainted  with  the  dramatic  activities  of 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel.  He  saw  an  opportu- 
nity to  take  over  the  Blackfriars  venture  now  that 
Evans  and  probably  Giles  had  been  forbidden  by 
the  Star  Chamber  to  have  any  connection  with 
plays  in  that  building.  Having  associated  with  him 
William  Rastell,  a  merchant,  and  Thomas  Ken- 
dall,2 a  haberdasher,  he  made  overtures  to  Evans, 
the  owner  of  the  lease.  Evans,  however,  was  de- 
termined to  retain  a  half-interest  in  the  playhouse, 
and  to  evade  the  order  of  the  Star  Chamber  by 
using  his  son-in-law,  Alexander  Hawkins,  as  his 
agent.  Accordingly,  on  April  20,  1602,  "Articles  of 
Agreement"  were  signed  between  Evans  and  Haw- 
kins on  the  one  part,  and  Kirkham,  Rastell,  and 

1  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  p.  248. 

2  Wc  find  in  Henslowc's  Diary  a  player  named  William  Ken- 
dall, but  we  do  not  know  that  he  was  related  to  Thomas. 


2i4     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Kendall  on  the  other  part,  whereby  the  latter  were 
admitted  to  a  half-interest  in  the  playhouse  and  in 
the  troupe  of  child-actors.  Kirkham,  Rastell,  and 
Kendall  agreed  to  pay  one-half  of  the  annual  rent 
of  £40,*  to  pay  one-half  of  the  repairs  on  the  build- 
ing, and  in  addition  to  spend  £400  on  apparel  and 
furnishings  for  the  troupe.  Under  this  reorganiza- 
tion —  with  Evans  as  a  secret  partner  —  the 
Children  continued  to  act  with  their  customary 
success. 

About  a  month  later,  however,  Lord  Hunsdon, 
the  Lord  Chamberlain,  whose  house  adjoined 
Blackfriars,  seems  to  have  inquired  into  the  affairs 
of  the  new  organization.2  What  Kirkham  told  him 
led  him  to  order  Evans  off  the  premises.  Evans  in- 
forms us  that  he  was  "  commanded  by  his  Lordship 
to  avoid  and  leave  the  same;  for  fear  of  whose  dis- 
pleasure, the  complainant  [Evans]  was  forced  to 
leave  the  country."  3  He  felt  it  prudent  to  remain 
away  from  London  "for  a  long  space  and  time"; 
yet  he  "lost  nothing,"  for  "he  left  the  said  Alex- 
ander Hawkins  to  deal  for  him  and  to  take  such 
benefit  of  the  said  house  as  should  belong  unto  him 
in  his  absence."  4 

If  we  may  judge  from  the  enthusiastic  account 
given  by  the  Duke  of  Stettin-Pomerania,  who  vis- 

1  The  agreements  remind  one  of  the  organization  of  the  Globe. 
It  seems  clear  that  Kirkham,  Rastell,  and  Kendall  held  their 
moiety  in  joint  tenancy. 

2  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  pp.  211-13;  216;  220. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  220.  *  Ibid.,  p.  217. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      215 

ited  Blackfriars  in  the  September  following,  the 
Children  were  just  as  effective  under  Kirkham's 
management  as  they  had  been  under  the  man- 
agement of  Giles  and  Evans.  It  is  to  be  noted, 
however,  that  Elizabeth  did  not  again  invite  the 
Blackfriars  troupe  to  the  Court. 

The  death  of  the  Queen  in  1603  led  to  the  closing 
of  all  playhouses.  This  was  followed  by  a  long 
attack  of  the  plague,  so  that  for  many  months 
Blackfriars  was  closed,  and  "by  reason  thereof  no 
such  profit  and  commodity  was  raised  and  made  of 
and  by  the  said  playhouse  as  was  hoped  for."  l 
Evans  actually  "treated"  with  Richard  Burbage 
"about  the  surrendering  and  giving  up  the  said 
lease,"  but  Burbage  declined  to  consider  the  matter. 

Shortly  after  this  the  plague  ceased,  and  acting, 
stimulated  by  King  James's  patronage,  was  re- 
sumed with  fervor.  The  Blackfriars  Company  was 
reorganized  under  Edward  Kirkham,  Alexander 
Hawkins  (acting  for  Evans),  Thomas  Kendall,  and 
Robert  Payne;  and  on  February  4,  1604,  it  secured 
a  royal  patent  to  play  under  the  title  "The  Chil- 
dren of  the  Queen's  Revels."  2   According  to  this 

1  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  p.  235. 

1  For  the  patent,  commonly  misdated  January  30,  see  The 
Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  267.  Mr.  Wallace,  in  The  Century 
Magazine  (September,  1910,  p.  747),  says  that  the  company  se- 
cured its  patent  "through  the  intercessions  of  the  poet  Samuel 
Daniel."  It  is  true  that  the  Children  of  Her  Majesty's  Royal 
Chamber  of  Bristol  secured  their  patent  in  161 5  at  the  interces- 
sion of  Daniel,  but  I  know  of  no  evidence  that  he  intervened  in 
behalf  of  the  Blackfriars  troupe. 


216     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

patent,  the  poet  Samuel  Daniel  was  specially  ap- 
pointed to  license  their  plays:  "Provided  always 
that  no  such  plays  or  shows  shall  be  presented  be- 
fore the  said  Queen  our  wife  by  the  said  Children, 
or  by  them  anywhere  publicly  acted,  but  by 
the  approbation  and  allowance  of  Samuel  Daniel, 
whom  her  pleasure  is  to  appoint  for  that  purpose." 
At  this  time,  too,  or  not  long  after,  John  Marston 
was  allowed  a  share  in  the  organization,  and  thus 
was  retained  as  one  of  its  regular  playwrights. 

The  success  of  the  new  company  is  indicated  by 
the  fact  that  it  was  summoned  to  present  a  play  at 
Court  in  February,  1604,  and  again  two  plays  in 
January,  1605.  Evans's  activity  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  troupe  in  spite  of  the  order  of  the  Star 
Chamber  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  payment 
for  the  last  two  court  performances  was  made 
directly  to  him. 

In  the  spring  of  1604  the  company  gave  serious 
offense  by  acting  Samuel  Daniel's  Philotas,  which 
was  supposed  to  relate  to  the  unfortunate  Earl  of 
Essex;  but  the  blame  must  have  fallen  largely  on 
Daniel,  who  not  only  wrote  the  play,  but  also 
licensed  its  performance.  He  was  summoned  before 
the  Privy  Council  to  explain,  and  seems  to  have 
fully  proved  his  innocence.  Shortly  after  this  he 
published  the  play  with  an  apology  affixed.1 

The  following  year  the  Children  gave  much  more 

1  A  letter  from  Daniel  to  the  Earl  of  Devonshire  vindicating 
the  play  is  printed  in  Grosart's  Daniel,  i,  xxii. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS       217 

serious  offense  by  acting  Eastward  Hoe,  a  comedy 
in  which  Marston,  Chapman,  and  Jonson  collabo- 
rated. Not  only  did  the  play  ridicule  the  Scots  in 
general,  and  King  James's  creation  of  innumerable 
knights  in  particular,  but  one  of  the  little  actors 
was  actually  made,  it  seems,  to  mimic  the  royal 
brogue :  "  I  ken  the  man  weel;  he  is  one  of  my  thirty 
pound  Knights."  Marston  escaped  by  timely 
flight,  but  Jonson  and  Chapman  were  arrested  and 
lodged  in  jail,  and  were  for  a  time  in  some  danger 
of  having  their  nostrils  slit  and  their  ears  cropped. 
Both  Chapman  and  Jonson  asserted  that  they 
were  wholly  innocent,  and  Chapman  openly  put 
the  blame  of  the  offensive  passages  on  Marston.1 
Marston,  however,  was  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
King's  wrath,  so  His  Majesty  punished  instead  the 
men  in  control  of  Blackfriars.  It  was  discovered 
that  the  manager,  Kirkham,  had  presented  the  play 
without  securing  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  allow- 
ance. As  a  result,  he  and  the  others  in  charge  of  the 
Children  were  prohibited  from  any  further  connec- 
tion with  the  playhouse.  This  doubtless  explains 
the  fact  that  Kirkham  shortly  after  appears  as  one 
of  the  managers  of  Paul's  Boys.2  It  explains,  also, 
the  following  statement  made  by  Evans  in  the 
course  of  one  of  the  later  legal  documents:  "After 
the  King's  most  excellent  Majesty,  upon  some  mis- 

1  See  Dobell,  "Newly  Discovered  Documents,"  in  The  Athe- 
tueum,  March  30,  IQOI. 

2  Cunningham,  Rei'ds,  p.  xxzviii. 


2i 8     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

demeanors  committed  in  or  about  the  plays  there, 
and  specially  upon  the  defendant's  [Kirkham's]  acts 
and  doings  there,  had  prohibited  that  no  plays 
should  be  more  used  there,"  etc.1  Not  only  was 
Kirkham  driven  from  the  management  of  the 
troupe  and  the  playhouse  closed  for  a  time,  but 
the  Children  were  denied  the  Queen's  patronage. 
No  longer  were  they  allowed  to  use  the  high- 
sounding  title  "The  Children  of  the  Queen's  Maj- 
esty's Revels";  instead,  we  find  them  described 
merely  as  "The  Children  of  the  Revels,"  or  as 
"The  Children  of  Blackfriars."  2 

For  a  time,  no  doubt,  affairs  at  the  playhouse 
were  at  a  standstill.  Evans  again  sought  to  surren- 
der his  lease  to  Burbage,  but  without  success.3 
Marston,  having  escaped  the  wrath  of  the  King  by 
flight,  decided  to  end  his  career  as  a  playwright  and 
turn  country  parson.  It  was  shortly  after  this,  in 
all  probability,  that  he  sold  his  share  in  the  Black- 
friars organization  to  one  Robert  Keysar,  a  gold- 
smith of  London,  for  the  sum  of  £ioo.4 

Keysar,  it  seems,  undertook  to  reopen  the  play- 
house, and  to  continue  the  Children  there  at  his 
own  expense.5  From  the  proprietors  he  rented  the 
playhouse,  the  stock  of  apparel,  the  furnishings, 

1  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  p.  221. 

2  Except  carelessly,  as  when  sometimes  called  "The  Children 
of  the  Chapel." 

3  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  82. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  81,  86,  89,93. 

6  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  80  ff. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      219 

and  playbooks.    This,  I  take  it,  explains  the  puz- 
zling statement  made  by  Kirkham  some  years  later: 

This  repliant  [Kirkham]  and  his  said  partners  [Ras- 
tell  and  Kendall]  have  had  and  received  the  sum  of 
one  hundred  pounds  per  annum  for  their  part  and 
moiety  in  the  premises  without  any  manner  of  charges 
whatsoever  [i.e.,  during  Kirkham's  management  of 
the  troupe  prior  to  1605].  *  And  after  that  this  reply- 
ant  and  his  said  partners  had  received  the  foresaid 
profits  [i.e.,  after  Kirkham  and  his  partners  had  to 
give  up  the  management  of  the  Children  in  1605],  the 
said  Children,  which  the  said  Evans  in  his  answer 
affirmeth  to  be  the  Queen's  Children  [i.e.,  they  are  no 
longer  the  Queen's  Children,  for  after  1605  they  had 
been  deprived  of  the  Queen's  patronage;  but  Kirk- 
ham was  in  error,  for  Evans  with  legal  precision  had 
referred  to  the  company  as  'The  Queen's  Majesty's 
Children  of  the  Revels  (for  so  it  was  often  called) '] 
were  masters  themselves  [i.e.,  their  own  managers], 
and  this  complainant  and  his  said  partners  received 
of  them,  and  of  one  Keysar  who  was  interest  with 
them,  above  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds 
per  annum  only  for  the  use  of  the  said  great  hall, 
without  all  manner  of  charges,  as  this  replyant  will 
make  it  manifest  to  this  honorable  court.2 

Under  Keysar's  management  the  Blackfriars 
troupe  continued  to  act  as  the  Children  of  the 

1  That  is,  £33,  more  or  less,  a  share.  We  have  documentary 
evidence  to  show  that  a  share  in  the  Red  Bull  produced  £30,  and 
a  share  in  the  Globe  £30  to  £40  per  annum. 

2  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  p.  249.  The  yearly  rental  must  have  included 
not  only  the  playhouse  and  its  equipment,  but  the  playbooks, 
apparel,  properties,  etc.,  belonging  to  the  Children.  These  were 
on  July  26,  1608,  divided  up  among  the  sharers,  Kirkham,  Ras- 
tell,  Kendall,  and  Evans. 


iio    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Revels.  But,  unfortunately,  they  had  not  learned 
wisdom  from  their  recent  experience,  and  in  the 
very  following  year  we  find  them  again  in  serious 
trouble.  John  Day's  Isle  of  Guls,  acted  in  Febru- 
ary, 1606,  gave  great  offense  to  the  Court.  Sir 
Edward  Hoby,  in  a  letter  to  Sir  Thomas  Edwards,1 
writes :  "At  this  time  was  much  speech  of  a  play  in 
the  Blackfriars,  where,  in  the  Isle  of  Guls,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest,  all  men's  parts  were  acted  of 
two  diverse  nations.  As  I  understand,  sundry  were 
committed  to  Bridewell."  2 

The  Children,  however,  were  soon  allowed  to 
resume  playing,  and  they  continued  for  a  time 
without  mishap.  But  in  the  early  spring  of  1608 
they  committed  the  most  serious  offense  of  all  by 
acting  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of 
Charles,  Duke  of  Byron.  The  French  Ambassador 
took  umbrage  at  the  uncomplimentary  representa- 
tion of  the  contemporary  French  Court,  and  had 
an  order  made  forbidding  them  to  act  the  play. 
But  the  Children,  "voyant  toute  la  Cour  dehors, 
ne  laisserent  de  la  faire,  et  non  seulement  cela, 
mais  y  introduiserent  la  Reine  et  Madame  de  Ver- 

1  Birch,  Court  and  Times  of  James  the  First,  I,  60;  quoted  by 
E.  K.  Chambers,  in  Modern  Language  Review,  iv,  158. 

2  Possibly  an  aftermath  of  the  King's  displeasure  is  to  be  found 
in  the  cancellation  of  Giles's  long-standing  commission  to  take  up 
boys  for  the  Chapel,  and  the  issuance  of  a  new  commission  to 
him,  November  7,  1606,  with  the  distinct  proviso  that  "none  of 
the  said  choristers  or  children  of  the  Chapel  so  to  be  taken  by 
force  of  this  commission  shall  be  used  or  employed  as  commedians 
or  stage  players."    (The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  357.) 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      221 

neuil,  traitant  celle-ci  fort  mal  de  paroles,  et  lui 
dormant  un  soufflet."  Whereupon  the  French  Am- 
bassador made  special  complaint  to  Salisbury,  who 
ordered  the  arrest  of  the  author  and  the  actors. 
"Toutefois  il  ne  s'en  trouva  que  trois,  qui  aussi-tot 
furent  menes  a  la  prison  ou  ils  sont  encore;  mais  le 
principal,  qui  est  le  compositeur,  echapa."  l  The 
Ambassador  observes  also  that  a  few  days  before 
the  Children  of  the  Revels  had  given  offense  by  a 
play  on  King  James:  "Un  jour  ou  deux  avant,  ils 
avoient  depeche  leur  Roi,  sa  mine  d'Ecosse,  et  tous 
ses  Favoris  d'une  etrange  sorte;  car  apres  lui  avoir 
fait  depiter  le  Ciel  sur  le  vol  d'un  oisseau,  et  fait 
battre  un  Gentilhomme  pour  avoir  rompu  ses 
chiens,  ils  le  depeignoient  ivre  pour  le  moins  une 
fois  le  jour."  2  As  a  result  of  these  two  offenses, 
coming  as  a  climax  to  a  long  series  of  such  of- 
fenses, the  King  was  "extremement  irrite  contre  ces 

1  From  the  report  of  the  French  Ambassador,  M.  de  la  Boderie, 
to  M.  de  Puisieux  at  Paris,  Ambassades  de  Monsieur  de  la  Boderie 
en  Angleterre,  1750,  in,  196;  quoted  by  E.  K.  Chambers  in  Mod- 
ern Language  Review,  iv,  158. 

2  The  name  of  this  play  is  not  known;  probably  the  King  was 
satirized  in  a  comic  scene  foisted  upon  an  otherwise  innocent 
piece.  Mr.  Wallace,  in  The  Century  Magazine  (September,  1910, 
p.  747),  says:  "From  a  document  I  have  found  in  France  the 
Blackfriars  boys  now  satirized  the  King's  efforts  to  raise  money, 
made  local  jokes  on  the  recent  discovery  of  his  silver  mine  in 
Scotland,  brought  him  on  the  stage  as  drunk,  and  showed  such  to 
be  his  condition  at  least  three  times  a  day,  caricatured  him  in  his 
favorite  pastime  of  hawking,  and  represented  him  as  swearing 
and  cursing  at  a  gentleman  for  losing  a  bird."  I  do  not  know  what 
document  Mr.  Wallace  has  found;  the  French  document  quoted 
above  has  been  known  for  a  long  time. 


222     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

marauds-la,"  and  gave  order  for  their  immediate 
suppression.  This  marked  the  end  of  the  child- 
actors  at  Blackfriars. 

Naturally  Kirkham,  Rastell,  and  Kendall,  since 
there  was  "no  profit  made  of  the  said  house,  but  a 
continual  rent  of  forty  pounds  to  be  paid  for  the 
same,"  became  sick  of  their  bargain  with  Evans. 
An  additional  reason  for  their  wishing  to  withdraw 
finally  from  the  enterprise  was  the  rapid  increase 
of  the  plague,  which  about  July  25  closed  all  play- 
houses. So  Kirkham,  "at  or  about  the  26  of  July, 
1608,  caused  the  apparrels,  properties,  and  goods 
belonging  to  the  copartners,  sharers,  and  masters" 
to  be  divided.  Kirkham  and  his  associates  took 
away  their  portions,  and  "quit  the  place,"  the  one- 
time manager  using  to  Evans  some  unkind  words : 
"  said  he  would  deal  no  more  with  it,  'for,'  quod  he, 
1  it  is  a  base  thing,'  or  used  words  to  such  or  very 
like  effect."  l  Evans,  thus  deserted  by  Kirkham, 
Rastell,  and  Kendall,  regarded  the  organization  of 
the  Blackfriars  as  dissolved;  he  "delivered  up  their 
commission  which  he  had  under  the  Great  Seal 
authorizing  them  to  play,  and  discharged  diverse 
of  the  partners  and  poets." 

Robert  Keysar,  however,  the  old  manager,  laid 
plans  to  keep  the  Children  together,  and  continue 
them  as  a  troupe  after  the  cessation  of  the  plague. 
For  a  while,  we  are  told,  he  maintained  them  at  his 
own  expense,  "in  hope  to  have  enjoyed  his  said 
x  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  pp.  221-22. 


THE  SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      223 

bargain  .  .  .  upon  the  ceasing  of  the  general  sick- 
ness." l  And  he  expected,  by  virtue  of  the  share  he 
had  purchased  from  John  Marston,  to  be  able  to 
use  the  Blackfriars  Playhouse  for  his  purpose. 

In  the  meanwhile  Evans  began  negotiations  with 
Burbage  for  the  surrender  of  the  lease:  "By  reason 
the  said  premises  lay  then  and  had  long  lyen  void 
and  without  use  for  plays,  whereby  the  same 
became  not  only  burthensome  and  unprofitable 
unto  the  said  Evans,  but  also  ran  far  into  decay  for 
want  of  reparations  .  .  .  the  said  Evans  began  to 
treat  with  the  said  Richard  Burbage  about  a  sur- 
render of  the  said  Evans  his  said  lease."  2  This 
time  Burbage  listened  to  the  proposal,  for  he  and 
his  fellow-actors  at  the  Globe  "considered  that  the 
house  would  be  fit  for  themselves. "  So  in  August, 
1608,  he  agreed  to  take  over  the  building  for  the 
use  of  the  King's  Men. 

Even  after  Evans's  surrender  of  the  lease,  Key- 
sar,  it  seems,  made  an  effort  to  keep  the  Children 
together.  On  the  following  Christmas,  1608-09,  we 
find  a  record  of  payment  to  him  for  performances 
at  Court,  by  "The  Children  of  Blackfriars."  But 
soon  after  this  the  troupe  must  have  been  dis- 
banded. Keysar  says  that  they  were  "enforced  to 
be  dispersed  and  turned  away  to  the  abundant  hurt 
of  the  said  young  men"; 3  and  the  Burbages  and 
Heminges  declare  that  the  children   "were  dis- 

1  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  pp.  83,  97. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  87.  »  Ibid.,  p.  90. 


224    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

persed  and  driven  each  of  them  to  provide  for  him- 
self by  reason  that  the  plays  ceasing  in  the  City  of 
London,  either  through  sickness,  or  for  some  other 
cause,  he,  the  said  complainant  [Keysar],  was  no 
longer  able  to  maintain  them  together."  x  In  the 
autumn  of  1609,  however,  Keysar  assembled  the 
Children  again,  reorganized  them  with  the  assist- 
ance of  Philip  Rosseter,  and  placed  them  in  White- 
friars  Playhouse,  recently  left  vacant  by  the  dis- 
ruption of  the  Children  of  His  Majesty's  Revels. 
Their  subsequent  history  will  be  found  related  in 
the  chapter  dealing  with  that  theatre. 

When  in  August,  1608,  Richard  Burbage  secured 
from  Evans  the  surrender  of  the  Blackfriars  lease, 
he  at  once  proceeded  to  organize  from  the  Globe 
Company  a  syndicate  to  operate  the  building  as  a 
playhouse.  He  admitted  to  partnership  in  the  new 
enterprise  all  of  the  then  sharers  in  the  Globe  ex- 
cept Witter  and  Nichols,  outsiders  who  had  secured 
their  interest  through  marriage  with  the  heirs  of 
Pope  and  Phillips,  and  who,  therefore,  were  not 
entitled  to  any  consideration.  In  addition,  he  ad- 
mitted Henry  Evans,  doubtless  in  fulfillment  of  a 
condition  in  the  surrender  of  the  lease.  The  syndi- 
cate thus  formed  was  made  up  of  seven  equal  shar- 
ers, as  follows:  Richard  Burbage,  Cuthbert  Bur- 
bage, Henry  Evans,  William  Shakespeare,  John 
Heminges,  Henry  Condell,  and  William  Slye. 
These  sharers  leased  the  building  from  Richard 

1  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  97. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      225 

Burbage  for  a  period  of  twenty-one  years,1  at  the 
old  rental  of  £40  per  annum,  each  binding  himself 
to  pay  annually  the  sum  of  £5  145.  $d.-  The 
method  of  distributing  the  profits  between  the 
sharers  (known  as  "  housekeepers  ")  and  the  actors 
(known  as  the  "company")  was  to  be  the  same  as 
that  practiced  at  the  Globe.3 

Soon  after  this  organization  was  completed,  the 
King's  Men  moved  from  the  Globe  to  the  Black- 
friars.  They  did  not,  of  course,  intend  to  abandon 
the  Globe.  Their  plan  was  to  use  the  Blackfriars 
as  a  "winter  home,"  and  the  Globe  as  a  "summer 
house." 4  Malone  observed  from  the  Herbert 
Manuscript  that  "the  King's  Company  usually  be- 
gan to  play  at  the  Globe  in  the  month  of  May"; 5 
although  he  failed  to  state  at  what  time  in  the 
autumn  they  usually  moved  to  the  Blackfriars, 
the  evidence  points  to  the  first  of  November. 

Such  a  plan  had  many  advantages.  For  one 
thing,  it  would  prevent  the  pecuniary  losses  often 

1  Twenty-one  years  was  a  very  common  term  for  a  lease  to  run; 
but  in  this  case,  no  doubt,  it  was  intended  that  the  lease  of  Black- 
friars should  last  as  long  as  the  lease  of  the  Globe,  which  then  had 
exactly  twenty-one  years  to  run. 

2  Shortly  after  this  agreement  had  been  made  William  Slye 
died,  and  his  executrix  delivered  up  his  share  to  Richard  Bur- 
bage "to  be  cancelled  and  made  void."  See  the  Heminges- 
Osteler  documents  printed  by  Mr.  Wallace  in  the  London  Times, 
October  4,  1909.  In  161 1  Burbage  let  William  Osteler  have  this 
share. 

*  The  method  is  clearly  explained  in  the  documents  of  1635 
printed  by  Halliwell-Phillipps,  in  Outlines,  1,  312. 

*  See  Wright,  Historia  Histrionica,  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  xv,  406. 
8  Malone,  Variorum,  ill,  71. 


226     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

caused  by  a  severe  winter,  fin  the  Poetaster  (1601), 
Jonson  makes  Histrio,  representing  the  Globe  Play- 
ers, say:  "O,  it  will  get  us  a  huge  deal  of  money, 
and  we  have  need  on  't,  for  this  winter  has  made 
us  all  poorer  than  so  many  starved  snakes;  no- 
body comes  at  us." l  This  could  not  be  said  of  the 
King's  Men  after  they  moved  to  the  Blackfriars.i 
Edward  Kirkham,  a  man  experienced  in  theatrical 
finances,  offered  to  prove  to  the  court  in  161 2  that 
the  King's  Men  "got,  and  as  yet  doth,  more  in 
one  winter  in  the  said  great  hall  by  a  thousand 
pounds  than  they  were  used  to  get  on  the  Bank- 
side."  2 

Kirkham's  testimony  as  to  the  popularity  of  the 
King's  Men  in  their  winter  home  is  borne  out  by  a 
petition  to  the  city  authorities  made  by  "the  con- 
stables and  other  officers  and  inhabitants  of  Black- 
friars  "  in  January,  1619.  They  declared  that  to  the 
playhouse  "there  is  daily  such  resort  of  people,  and 
such  multitudes  of  coaches  (whereof  many  are 
hackney-coaches,  bringing  people  of  all  sorts),  that 
sometimes  all  our  streets  cannot  contain  them,  but 
that  they  clog  up  Ludgate  also,  in  such  sort  that 
both  they  endanger  the  one  the  other,  break  down 
stalls,  throw  down  men's  goods  from  their  shops, 
and  the  inhabitants  there  cannot  come  to  their 
houses,  nor  bring  in  their  necessary  provisions  of 

1  Act  nr,  scene  iv.    Cf.  also  Webster's  Preface  to  The  White 
Devil,  acted  at  the  Red  Bull  about  1610. 

2  Fleay,  A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  p.  248. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      227 

beer,  wood,  coal,  or  hay,  nor  the  tradesmen  or  shop- 
keepers utter  their  wares,  nor  the  passenger  go  to 
the  common  water  stairs  without  danger  of  their 
lives  and  limbs."  "These  inconveniences"  were 
said  to  last  "every  day  in  the  winter  time  from 
one  or  two  of  the  clock  till  six  at  night."  ' 

As  a  result  of  this  petition  the  London  Common 
Council  ordered,  January  21,  1619,  that  "the  said 
playhouses  be  suppressed,  and  that  the  players 
shall  from  thenceforth  forbear  and  desist  from 
playing  in  that  house."  2  But  the  players  had  at 
Court  many  influential  friends,  and  these  appar- 
ently came  to  their  rescue.  The  order  of  the  Com- 
mon Council  was  not  put  into  effect;  and  so  far  as 
we  know  the  only  result  of  this  agitation  was  that 
King  James  on  March  27  issued  to  his  actors  a  new 
patent  specifically  giving  them  —  described  as  his 
"well-beloved  servants"  —  the  right  henceforth 
to  play  unmolested  in  Blackfriars.  The  new  clause 
in  the  patent  runs:  "as  well  within  their  two  their 
now  usual  houses  called  the  Globe,  within  our 
County  of  Surrey,  and  their  private  house  situate 
in  the  precinct  of  the  Blackfriars,  within  our  city 
of  London." 3  At  the  accession  of  King  Charles  I, 
the  patent  was  renewed,  June  24,  1625,  with  the 
same  clause  regarding  the  use  of  Blackfriars.4 

In  163 1,  however,  the  agitation  was  renewed, 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  91. 

'  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  1,  311. 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  281.       *  Ibid.,  1,  282. 


228     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

this  time  in  the  form  of  a  petition  from  the  church- 
wardens and  constables  of  the  precinct  of  Black- 
friars  to  William  Laud,  then  Bishop  of  London. 
The  document  gives  such  eloquent  testimony  to 
the  popularity  of  the  playhouse  that  I  have  inserted 
it  below  in  full : 

To  the  Right  Honorable  and  Right  Reverend 
Father  in  God,  William,  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  one 
of  His  Majesty's  Honorable  Privy  Council.  The 
humble  petition  of  the  churchwardens  and  constables 
of  Blackfriars,  on  the  behalf  of  the  whole  Parish, 
showing  that  by  reason  of  a  playhouse,  exceedingly 
frequented,  in  the  precinct  of  the  said  Blackfriars,  the 
inhabitants  there  suffer  many  grievances  upon  the 
inconveniences  hereunto  annexed,  and  many  other. 

May  it  therefore  please  your  Lordship  to  take  the 
said  grievances  into  your  honorable  consideration  for 
the  redressing  thereof.  And  for  the  reviving  the  order, 
which  hath  been  heretofore  made  by  the  Lords  of 
the  Council,  and  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Court 
of  Aldermen,  for  the  removal  of  them.  And  they 
shall,  according  to  their  duties,  ever  pray  for  your 
Lordship. 

Reasons  and  Inconveniences  Inducing  the  In- 
habitants of  Blackfriars,  London,  to  Become 
Humble  Suitors  to  Your  Lordship  for  Remov- 
ing the  Playhouse  in  the  Said  Blackfriars: 

1.  The  shopkeepers  in  divers  places  suffer  much, 
being  hindered  by  the  great  recourse  to  the  plays 
(especially  of  coaches)  from  selling  their  commodities, 
and  having  their  wares  many  times  broken  and 
beaten  off  their  stalls. 

2.  The  recourse  of  coaches  is  many  times  so  great 
that  the  inhabitants  cannot  in  an  afternoon  take  in 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      229 

any  provision  of  beer,  coals,  wood,  or  hay,  the  streets 
being  known  to  be  so  exceeding  straight  and  narrow. 

3.  The  passage  through  Ludgate  to  the  water  [i.e., 
Water  Lane]  is  many  times  stopped  up,  people  in 
their  ordinary  going  much  endangered,  quarrels  and 
bloodshed  many  times  occasioned,  and  many  disor- 
derly people  towards  night  gathered  thither,  under 
pretense  of  attending  and  waiting  for  those  at  the 
plays. 

4.  If  there  should  happen  any  misfortune  of  fire, 
there  is  not  likely  any  present  order  could  possibly  be 
taken,  for  the  disorder  and  number  of  the  coaches, 
since  there  could  be  no  speedy  passage  made  for 
quenching  the  fire,  to  the  endangering  of  the  parish 
and  city. 

5.  Christenings  and  burials,  which  usually  are  in 
the  afternoon,  are  many  times  disturbed,  and  persons 
endangered  in  that  part,  which  is  the  greatest  part  of 
the  parish. 

6.  Persons  of  honor  and  quality  that  dwell  in  the 
parish  are  restrained  by  the  number  of  coaches  from 
going  out,  or  coming  home  in  seasonable  time,  to  the 
prejudice  of  their  occasions.  And  some  persons  of 
honor  have  left,  and  others  have  refused  houses  for 
this  very  inconvenience,  to  the  prejudice  and  loss  of 
the  parish. 

7.  The  Lords  of  the  Council  in  former  times  have 
by  order  directed  that  there  shall  be  but  two  play- 
houses tolerated,  and  those  without  the  city,  the  one 
at  the  Bankside,  the  other  near  Golding  Lane  (which 
these  players  still  have  and  use  all  summer),  which  the 
Lords  did  signify  by  their  letters  to  the  Lord  Mayor; 
and  in  performance  thereof  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the 
Court  of  Aldermen  did  give  order  that  they  should 
forbear  to  play  any  longer  there,  which  the  players 


a3o    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

promised  to  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  Common 
Pleas  (while  he  was  Recorder  of  London)  to  observe, 
entreating  only  a  little  time  to  provide  themselves 
elsewhere. 1 

Bishop  Laud  endorsed  the  petition  with  his  own 
hand  "To  the  Coun.  Table,"  and  in  all  prob- 
ability he  submitted  it  to  the  consideration  of 
the  Privy  Council.  If  so,  the  Council  took  no 
action. 

But  in  1633,  as  a  result  of  further  complaints 
about  the  crowding  of  coaches,  the  Privy  Council 
appointed  a  committee  to  estimate  the  value  of 
the  Blackfriars  Theatre  and  "the  buildings  there- 
unto belonging,"  with  the  idea  of  removing  the 
playhouse  and  paying  the  owners  therefor.  The 
committee  reported  that  "the  players  demanded 
£21,000.  The  commissioners  [Sir  Henry  Spiller, 
Sir  William  Beecher,  and  Laurence  Whitaker] 
valued  it  at  near  £3000.  The  Parishioners  offered 
towards  the  removing  of  them  £100."  2  Obviously 
the  plan  of  removal  was  not  feasible,  if  indeed  the 
Privy  Council  seriously  contemplated  such  action. 
The  only  result  of  this  second  agitation  was  the 

1  Collier,  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  1,  455. 

8  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1633,  p.  293.  The 
report  of  the  commissioners  in  full,  as  printed  by  Collier  in  New 
Facts  (1835),  p.  27,  and  again  in  History  of  English  Dramatic 
Poetry  (1879),  1,  477,  is  not  above  suspicion,  although  Mr.  E.  K. 
Chambers  is  inclined  to  think  it  genuine.  According  to  this  docu- 
ment the  actors  estimated  the  property  to  be  worth  £21,990,  but 
the  committee  thought  that  the  actors  might  be  persuaded  to 
accept  £2900  13/.  \d. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      231 

issuance  on  November  20  of  special  instructions 
to  coachmen :  "  If  any  persons,  men  or  women,  of 
what  condition  soever,  repair  to  the  aforesaid 
playhouse  in  coach,  as  soon  as  they  are  gone  out  of 
their  coaches,  the  coachmen  shall  depart  thence 
and  not  return  till  the  end  of  the  play." 1  Garrard, 
in  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Deputy  dated  January  9, 
1633,  says:  "Here  hath  been  an  order  of  the  Lords 
of  the  Council  hung  up  in  a  table  near  Paul's  and 
the  Blackfriars  to  command  all  that  resort  to  the 
playhouse  there  to  send  away  their  coaches,  and 
to  disperse  abroad  in  Paul's  Churchyard,  Carter 
Lane,  the  Conduit  in  Fleet  Street,  and  other  places, 
and  not  to  return  to  fetch  their  company,  but  they 
must  trot  afoot  to  find  their  coaches.  'T  was  kept 
very  strictly  for  two  or  three  weeks,  but  now  I 
think  it  is  disordered  again."  2  The  truth  is  that 
certain  distinguished  patrons  of  the  theatre  did  not 
care  "to  trot  afoot  to  find  their  coaches,"  and  so 
made  complaint  at  Court.  As  a  result  it  was  or- 
dered, at  a  sitting  of  the  Council,  December  29, 
1633  (the  King  being  present) :  "Upon  information 
this  day  given  to  the  Board  of  the  discommodity 
that  diverse  persons  of  great  quality,  especially 
Ladies  and  Gentlewomen,  did  receive  in  going  to 
the  playhouse  of  Blackfriars  by  reason  that  no 
coaches  may  stand  .  .  .  the  Board  .  .  .  think  fit  to 
explain  the  said  order  in  such  manner  that  as  many 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  99;  387. 

*  The  Earl  of  Slrajjorde's  Letters  (Dublin,  1740),  1,  175. 


12  2     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

coaches  as  may  stand  within  the  Blackfriars  Gate 
may  enter  and  stay  there."  l 

All  this  agitation  about  coaches  implies  a  fash- 
ionable and  wealthy  patronage  of  the  Blackfriars. 
An  interesting  glimpse  of  high  society  at  the  theatre 
is  given  in  a  letter  written  by  Garrard,  January  25, 
1636:  "A  little  pique  happened  betwixt  the  Duke 
of  Lenox  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain  about  a  box 
at  a  new  play  in  the  Blackfriars,  of  which  the  Duke 
had  got  the  key,  which,  if  it  had  come  to  be  debated 
betwixt  them,  as  it  was  once  intended,  some  heat 
or  perhaps  other  inconvenience  might  have  hap- 
pened." 2  The  Queen  herself  also  sometimes  went 
thither.  Herbert  records,  without  any  comment, 
her  presence  there  on  the  13  of  May,  1634.3  It  has 
been  generally  assumed  that  she  attended  a  regular 
afternoon  performance;  but  this,  I  am  sure,  was 
not  the  case.  The  Queen  engaged  the  entire  build- 
ing for  the  private  entertainment  of  herself  and  her 
specially  invited  guests,  and  the  performance  was 
at  night.  In  a  bill  presented  by  the  King's  Men  for 
plays  acted  before  the  members  of  the  royal  family 
during  the  year  1636  occurs  the  entry:  "The  5th  of 
May,  at  the  Blackfryers,  for  the  Queene  and  the 

Prince  Elector Alfonso"  Again,  in  a  similar 

bill  for  the  year  1638  (see  the  bill  on  page  404)  is 
the  entry:  "At  the  Blackfryers,  the  23  of  Aprill, 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  i,  388. 

2  The  Earl  of  Strajjorde's  Letters  (Dublin,  1740),  1,  511. 

3  The  Herbert  MS.,  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  167. 


THE   SECOND   BLACKFRIARS      <i33 

for  the  Queene The  Unfortunate  Lovers." 

The  fact  that  the  actors  did  not  record  the  loss  of 
their  "day"  at  their  house,  and  made  their  charge 
accordingly,  shows  that  the  plays  were  given  at 
night  and  did  not  interfere  with  the  usual  afternoon 
performances  before  the  public. 

The  King's  Men  continued  to  occupy  the  Black- 
friars  as  their  winter  home  until  the  closing  of  the 
theatres  in  1642.  Thereafter  the  building  must 
have  stood  empty  for  a  number  of  years.  In  1653 
Sir  Aston  Cokaine,  in  a  poem  prefixed  to  Richard 
Brome's  Plays,  looked  forward  prophetically  to 
the  happy  day  when 

Black,  and  White  Friars  too,  shall  flourish  again. 

But  the  prophecy  was  not  to  be  fulfilled;  for  al- 
though Whitefriars  (i.e.,  Salisbury  Court)  did  flour- 
ish as  a  Restoration  playhouse,  the  more  famous 
Blackfriars  had  ceased  to  exist  before  acting  was  al- 
lowed again.  The  manuscript  note  in  the  Phillipps 
copy  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1)  informs  us  that  "the 
Blackfriars  players'  playhouse  in  Blackfriars,  Lon- 
don, which  had  stood  many  years,  was  pulled 
down  to  the  ground  on  Monday  the  6  day  of 
August,  1655,  and  tenements  built  in  the  room."  l 

1  See  The  Academy,  1882,  xxn,  314.  Exactly  the  same  fate  had 
overtaken  the  Globe  ten  years  earlier. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  GLOBE 

AS  related  more  fully  in  the  chapter  on  "The 
Theatre,"  when  Cuthbert  and  Richard  Bur- 
bage  discovered  that  Gyles  Alleyn  not  only  refused 
to  renew  the  lease  for  the  land  on  which  their  play- 
house stood,  but  was  actually  planning  to  seize  the 
building  and  devote  it  to  his  private  uses,  they  took 
immediate  steps  to  thwart  him.  And  in  doing  so 
they  evolved  a  new  and  admirable  scheme  of  the- 
atrical management.  They  planned  to  bring  to- 
gether into  a  syndicate  or  stock-company  some  of 
the  best  actors  of  the  day,  and  allow  these  actors  to 
share  in  the  ownership  of  the  building.  Hitherto 
playhouses  had  been  erected  merely  as  pecuniary 
investments  by  profit-seeking  business  men,  — 
Burbage,1  Brayne,  Lanman,  Henslowe,  Cholmley, 
Langley,  —  and  had  been  conducted  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  proprietors  rather  than  of  the  actors.2 
As  a  result,  these  proprietors  had  long  reaped  an 
unduly  rich  harvest  from  the  efforts  of  the  players, 

1  That  even  James  Burbage  is  to  be  put  in  this  class  cannot  be 
disputed. 

2  Cuthbert  Burbage  in  1635  says:  "The  players  that  lived  in 
those  first  times  had  only  the  profits  arising  from  the  doors,  but 
now  the  players  receive  all  the  comings-in  at  the  doors  to  them- 
selves and  half  the  galleries  from  the  housekeepers."  (Halliwell- 
Phillipps,  Outlines,  1,  317.) 


a 

|C-^' 

a 

Rtjlpl 

1  ....   ' 

■     ..:■■■ 

^      '•■■ 

■   SI  *. 

il^ 

P #* 

jp*i    . 

-  •  i  ■  - 

,-•■   .-  ; 

Jffl 

mm  H 

BSqnv  E 

, 

.^./fr  ■  Mi<nm'ai»yci, 

.  M 

i  j 

Hk  ' 

w 

^W^"         '■: 

HK%9 

RICHARD  BURBAGE 

(Reproduced  by  permission  from  a  painting  in  the  Duhvich  Picture 
Gallery;  photograph  by  Emery  Walker,  Ltd.) 


THE  GLOBE  235 

taking  all  or  a  large  share  of  the  income  from  the 
galleries.  The  new  scheme  was  designed  to  remedy 
these  faults. 

For  participation  in  this  scheme  the  Burbages 
selected  the  following  men :  William  Shakespeare, 
not  only  a  successful  actor,  but  a  poet  who  had 
already  made  his  reputation  as  a  writer  of  plays, 
and  who  gave  promise  of  greater  attainments; 
John  Heminges,  a  good  actor  and  an  exceptionally 
shrewd  man  of  business,  who  until  his  death  man- 
aged the  pecuniary  affairs  of  the  company  with 
distinguished  success;  Augustine  Phillips  and 
Thomas  Pope,  both  ranked  with  the  best  actors  of 
the  day; x  and  William  Kempe,  the  greatest  com- 
edian since  Tarleton,  described  in  1600  as  "a 
player  in  interludes,  and  partly  the  Queen's  Maj- 
esty's jester."  When  to  this  group  we  add  Richard 
Burbage  himself,  the  Roscius  of  his  age,  we  have 
an  organization  of  business,  histrionic,  and  poetic 
ability  that  could  not  be  surpassed.  It  was  care- 
fully planned,  and  it  deserved  the  remarkable  suc- 
cess which  it  attained.  The  superiority  of  the 
Globe  Company  over  all  others  was  acknowledged 
in  the  days  of  James  and  Charles,  and  to-day 
stands  out  as  one  of  the  most  impressive  facts  in 
the  history  of  the  early  drama. 

1  See,  for  example,  Thomas  Heywood's  Apology  for  Actors 
(1612).  In  enumerating  the  greatest  actors  of  England  he  says: 
"Gabriel,  Singer,  Pope,  Phillips,  Sly — all  the  right  I  can  do 
them  is  but  this,  that  though  they  be  dead,  their  deserts  yet  live 
in  the  remembrance  of  many." 


236     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

According  to  the  original  plan  there  were  to  be 
ten  shares  in  the  new  enterprise,  the  Burbage 
brothers  holding  between  them  one-half  the  stock, 
or  two  and  a  half  shares  each,  and  the  five  actors 
holding  the  other  half,  or  one  share  each.  All  the 
expenses  of  leasing  a  site,  erecting  a  building,  and 
subsequently  operating  the  building  as  a  playhouse, 
and  likewise  all  the  profits  to  accrue  therefrom, 
were  to  be  divided  among  the  sharers  according 
to  their  several  holdings. 

This  organization,  it  should  be  understood, 
merely  concerned  the  ownership  of  the  building. 
Its  members  stood  in  the  relation  of  landlords  to 
the  players,  and  were  known  by  the  technical  name 
of  "housekeepers."  Wholly  distinct  was  the  or- 
ganization of  the  players,  known  as  the  "com- 
pany." The  company,  too,  was  divided  into  shares 
for  the  purpose  of  distributing  its  profits.  The 
"housekeepers,"  in  return  for  providing  the  build- 
ing, received  one-half  of  the  income  from  the  gal- 
leries; the  company,  for  entertaining  the  public, 
received  the  other  half  of  the  income  from  the  gal- 
leries, plus  the  takings  at  the  doors.  Those  actors 
who  were  also  "housekeepers"  shared  twice  in  the 
profits  of  the  playhouse ;  and  it  was  a  part  of  the  plan 
of  the  "  housekeepers  "  to  admit  actors  to  be  sharers 
in  the  building  as  soon  as  they  attained  eminence, 
or  otherwise  made  their  permanent  connection  with 
the  playhouse  desirable.  Thus  the  two  organiza- 
tions, though  entirely  distinct,  were  interlocking. 


THE  GLOBE  237 

Such  a  scheme  had  many  advantages.  In  the 
first  place,  it  prevented  the  company  from  shifting 
from  one  playhouse  to  another,  as  was  frequently 
the  case  with  other  troupes.  In  the  second  place,  it 
guaranteed  both  the  excellence  and  the  perma- 
nency of  the  company.  Too  often  good  companies 
were  dissolved  by  the  desertion  of  a  few  important 
members;  as  every  student  of  the  drama  knows, 
the  constant  reorganization  of  troupes  is  one  of  the 
most  exasperating  features  of  Elizabethan  theatri- 
cal history.  In  the  third  place,  the  plan,  like  all 
profit-sharing  schemes,  tended  to  elicit  from  each 
member  of  the  organization  his  best  powers.  The 
opportunity  offered  to  a  young  actor  ultimately  to 
be  admitted  as  a  sharer  in  the  ownership  of  the 
building  was  a  constant  source  of  inspiration,1  and 
the  power  to  admit  at  any  time  a  new  sharer  en- 
abled the  company  to  recruit  from  other  troupes 
brilliant  actors  when  such  appeared;  as,  for  ex- 
ample, William  Osteler  and  Nathaniel  Field,  who 
had  attained  fame  with  the  Children  at  Blackfriars 
and  elsewhere.  Finally,  thej>lanbrought  the  actors 
together  in  a  close  bond  of  friendship  that  lasted 
for  life.  Heminges  was  loved  and  trusted  by  them 
all.    Shakespeare  was  admired  and  revered;  three 

1  "The  petitioners  have  a  long  time  with  much  patience  ex- 
pected to  be  admitted  sharers  in  the  playhouses  of  the  Globe  and 
the  Blackfriars,  whereby  they  might  reap  some  better  fruit  of 
their  labour  than  hitherto  they  have  done,  and  be  encouraged  to 
proceed  therein  with  cheerfulness."  (The  Young  Players'  Peti- 
tion, 1635,  printed  by  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  i,  312.) 


238     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

members  of  the  troupe  seem  to  have  named  their 
sons  for  him.  Indeed,  there  is  nothing  more-in- 
spiring in  a  close  study  of  all  the  documents  relat- 
ing to  the  Globe  than  the  mutual  loyalty  and 
devotion  of  the  original  sharers.  The  publication 
of  Shakespeare's  plays  by  Heminges  and  Condell 
is  merely  one  out  of  many  expressions  of  this 
splendid  comradeship. 

The  plan  of  organization  having  been  evolved, 
and  the  original  members  having  been  selected,  the 
first  question  presenting  itself  was,  Where  should 
the  new  playhouse  be  erected?  Burbage,  Hem- 
inges, and  the  rest  —  including  Shakespeare  — 
probably  gave  the  question  much  thought.  Their 
experience  in  Holywell  had  not  been  pleasant;  the 
precinct  of  Blackfriars,  they  now  well  realized,  was 
out  of  the  question;  so  they  turned  their  eyes  to  the 
Bankside.  That  section  had  recently  become  the 
theatrical  centre  of  London.  There  were  situated 
the  Rose,  the  Swan,  and  the  Bear  Garden,  and 
thither  each  day  thousands  of  persons  flocked  in 
search  of  entertainment.  Clearly  the  Bankside  was 
best  suited  to  their  purpose.  Near  the  fine  old 
church  of  St.  Mary  Overies,  and  not  far  from  the 
Rose  and  the  Bear  Garden,  they  found  a  plot  of 
land  that  met  their  approval.  Its  owner,  Sir 
Nicholas  Brend,  was  willing  to  lease  it  for  a  long 
term  of  years,  and  at  a  very  reasonable  rate.  They 
made  a  verbal  contract  with  Brend,  according  to 
which  the  lease  was  to  begin  on  December  25, 1598. 


*i 

m. 

£1 

HB 

- 

E 

jag 

jjfes^. 

?<  ■?&?£■ U 

■     .- 

■ 

• 

- 

1    •  •»•••■• 

:  ••?•«'■ .       «•.  ••• 

•  ' :  •: :  v  .      *  ;  !• 
•••  .                      •  • 

•  .*"•.'    *  •  "•'•[*••.•  •  • 

•  .•  _••• ?«•  •!•  •  •• 

WILLIAM    SHAKESPEARE 
Shakespeare  seems  to  have  been  equally  with  Burbage  a  leader  in  erecting  the  Globe. 
In  1599  the  building  is  officially  described  as  "  vna  domo  de  novo  edificata  ...  in  occu- 
pacione  Willielmi  Shakespeare  et  aliorum." 


THE  GLOBE  239 

Three  days  later,  on  December  28,  Richard  and 
Cuthbert  Burbage,  having  secured  the  services  of 
the  carpenter,  Peter  Street,  and  his  workmen,  tore 
down  the  old  Theatre  and  transported  the  timber 
and  other  materials  to  this  new  site  across  the 
river;  and  shortly  after  the  Globe  began  to  lift  it- 
self above  the  houses  of  the  Bankside  —  a  hand- 
some theatre  surpassing  anything  then  known  to 
London  playgoers. 

In  the  meantime  the  lawyers  had  drawn  up  the 
lease,  and  this  was  formally  signed  on  February 
,21,  1599.  The  company  had  arranged  a  "tripartite 
lease,"  the  three  parties  being  Sir  Nicholas  Brend, 
the  Burbage  brothers,  and  the  five  actors.^  To  the 
Burbages  Sir  Nicholas  leased  one-half  of  the  prop- 
erty at  a  yearly  rental  of  £7  $s.;  and  to  the  five 
actors,  he  leased  the  other  half,  at  the  same  rate. 
Thus  the  total  rent  paid  for  the  land  was  £14  10s. 
The  lease  was  to  run  for  a  period  of  thirty-one  years. 

The  five  actors,  not  satisfied  with  tying  up  the 
property  in  the  "tripartite  lease,"  proceeded  at 
once  to  arrange  their  holdings  in  the  form  of  a 
"joint  tenancy."  This  they  accomplished  by  the 
following  device : 

William  Shakespeare,  Augustine  Phillips,  Thomas 
Pope,    John    Heminges,    and    William    Kempe    did 

1  Exact  information  about  the  lease  and  the  organization  of 
the  company  is  derived  from  the  Heminges-Osteler  and  the  Wit- 
ter-Heminges  documents,  both  discovered  and  printed  by  Mr. 
Wallace.  And  with  these  one  should  compare  the  article  by  the 
same  author  in  the  London  Times,  April  30,  May  1,  1914. 


24o     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

shortly  after  grant  and  assign  all  the  said  moiety 
of  and  in  the  said  gardens  and  grounds  unto  William 
Levison  and  Thomas  Savage,  who  regranted  and 
reassigned  to  every  one  of  them  severally  a  fifth  part 
of  the  said  moiety  of  the  said  gardens  and  grounds.1 

The  object  of  the  "joint  tenancy"  was  to  pre- 
vent any  member  of  the  organization  from  dispos- 
ing of  his  share  to  an  outsider.  Legally  at  the  death 
of  a  member  his  share  passed  into  the  possession  of 
the  other  members,  so  that  the  last  survivor  would 
receive  the  whole.  In  reality,  however,  the  mem- 
bers used  the  "joint  tenancy"  merely  to  control 
the  disposition  of  the  shares,  and  they  always  al- 
lowed the  heirs-at-law  to  receive  the  share  of  a 
deceased  member. 

The  wisdom  of  this  arrangement  was  quickly 
shown,  for  "about  the  time  of  the  building  of  said 
playhouse  and  galleries,  or  shortly  after,"  William 
Kempe  decided  to  withdraw  from  the  enterprise. 
He  had  to  dispose  of  his  share  to  the  other  parties 
in  the  "joint  tenancy,"  Shakespeare,  Heminges, 
Phillips,  and  Pope,  who  at  once  divided  it  equally 
among  themselves,  and  again  went  through  the 
process  necessary  to  place  that  share  in  "joint 
tenancy."  After  the  retirement  of  Kempe,  the 
organization,  it  will  be  observed,  consisted  of  six 
men,  and  the  shares  were  eight  in  number,  owned 

1  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  53. 
Shakespeare's  leadership  in  the  erection  of  the  Globe  is  indicated 
in  several  documents;  for  example,  the  post-mortem  inquisition 
of  the  estate  of  Sir  Thomas  Brend,  May  16,  1599. 


THE   GLOBE  241 

as  follows:  Richard  Burbage  and  Cuthbert  Bur- 
bage,  each  two  shares,  Shakespeare,  Heminges, 
Phillips,  and  Pope,  each  one  share. 

The  tract  of  land  on  which  the  new  playhouse 
was  to  be  erected  is  minutely  described  in  the 
lease  1  as  follows: 

All  that  parcel  of  ground  just  recently  before  en- 
closed and  made  into  four  separate  garden  plots,  re- 
cently in  the  tenure  and  occupation  of  Thomas  Burt 
and  Isbrand  Morris,  diers,  and  Lactantius  Roper, 
salter,  citizen  of  London,  containing  in  length  from 
east  to  west  two  hundred  and  twenty  feet  in  assize  or 
thereabouts,  lying  and  adjoining  upon  a  way  or  lane 
there  on  one  [the  south]  side,  and  abutting  upon  a 
piece  of  land  called  The  Park  2  upon  the  north,  and 
upon  a  garden  then  or  recently  in  the  tenure  or  occu- 
pation of  one  John  Cornishe  toward  the  west,  and 
upon  another  garden  plot  then  or  recently  in  the  ten- 
ure or  occupation  of  one  John  Knowles  toward  the 
east,  with  all  the  houses,  buildings,  structures,  ways, 
easements,  commodities,  and  appurtenances  there- 
unto belonging  .  .  .  And  also  all  that  parcel  of  land 
just  recently  before  enclosed  and  made  into  three  sep- 

1  The  lease  is  incorporated  in  the  Heminges-Osteler  docu- 
ments, which  Mr.  Wallace  has  translated  from  the  Anglicized 
Latin.  The  original  Latin  text  may  be  found  in  Martin,  The  Site 
of  the  Globe  Playhouse  of  Shakespeare,  pp.  161-62.  Since,  however, 
that  text  is  faultily  reproduced,  I  quote  Mr.  Wallace's  translation. 

2  What  is  meant  by  "The  Park"  is  a  matter  of  dispute.  Some 
contend  that  the  Park  of  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  is  meant;  it 
may  be,  however,  that  some  small  estate  is  referred  to.  In  sup- 
port of  the  latter  contention,  one  might  cite  Collier's  Memoirs  of 
Edward  Alleyn,  p.  91.  Part  of  the  document  printed  by  Collier 
may  have  been  tampered  with,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect 
the  two  references  to  "The  Parke." 


242     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 


arate  garden  plots,  whereof  two  of  the  same  [were] 
recently  in  the  tenure  or  occupation  of  John  Roberts, 
carpenter,  and  another  recently  in  the  occupation  of 

The  Park 

(an       CstatcT) 




. .- .  . 

7.1V     F«,*t- - 

- -% 

-  -  - 

■     ■ 

QOtrV 

I  - 

1 

1 

i 
i 

T-« 

*CV'Q         OAOOCNl 

| 

1 
4^  ^ 

[Qahoin     OP 

JoMf*  Coonis*} 

OOCUP 

%Tior«    c*  *  Tmo 

MAA     B^QT,         Ij^OAND 

Monsi*  ■ 

JOHN    KMOWLM 

Ano 

LactantivI 

OOPtQ. 

1 
i 

i 
> 

r 

• 

1 

! 

1 

ICaqoin   em 


|       Thc«c     two     c'aoocn*    #l 
m    THt    Ttnvil    OQ  oc 
or     Johp*    Ro ^w &.* 


j    "L*.Tt   *»  Tw* 


THOf-IAft    OlTCHtfi. 


P*floc»»    em 
Will  .am  Stuxas] 


f 


??i 


Maiden      Lane 
a  plan  of  the  globe  property 

Based  on  the  lease  and  on  other  documents  and  references  to  the  property. 

one  Thomas  Ditcher,  citizen  and  merchant  tailor  of 
London  .  .  .  containing  in  length  from  east  to  west 
by  estimation  one  hundred  fifty  and  six  feet  of  assize 
or  thereabouts,  and  in  breadth  from  the  north  to  the 
south  one  hundred  feet  of  assize  by  estimation  or 
thereabouts,  lying  and  adjoining  upon  the  other  side 
of  the  way  or  lane  aforesaid,  and  abutting  upon  a 
garden  plot  there  then  or  recently  just  before  in  the 
occupation  of  William  Sellers  toward  the  east,  and 


THE  GLOBE  243 

upon  one  other  garden  plot  there,  then  or  recently 
just  before,  in  the  tenure  of  John  Burgram,  sadler, 
toward  the  west,  and  upon  a  lane  there  called  Maiden 
Lane  towards  the  south,  with  all  the  houses  .  .  . 

This  document  clearly  states  that  the  Globe 
property  was  situated  to  the  north  of  Maiden 
Lane,  and  consequently  near  the  river.  Virtually 
all  the  contemporary  maps  of  London  show  the 
Globe  as  so  situated.  Mr.  Wallace  has  produced 
some  very  specific  evidence  to  support  the  docu- 
ment cited  above,  and  he  claims  to  have  additional 
evidence  as  yet  unpublished.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  at  least  some  evidence  to  indicate  that  the 
Globe  was  situated  to  the  south  of  Maiden  Lane.1 

For  the  purposes  of  this  book  it  is  sufficient  to 
know  that  the  Globe  was  "situate  in  Maiden 
Lane";  whether  on  the  north  side  or  the  south 
side  is  of  less  importance.  More  important  is  the 
nature  of  the  site.  Strype,  in  his  edition  of  Stow's 
Survey,  gives  this  description:  "Maiden  Lane,  a 
long  straggling  place,  with  ditches  on  each  side,  the 
passage  to  the  houses  being  over  little  bridges,  with 
little  garden  plots  before  them,  especially  on  the 
north  side,  which  is  best  both  for  houses  and  in- 
habitants." In  Maiden  Lane,  near  one  of  these 
ditches  or  "sewers,"  the  Globe  was  erected;  and 
like  the  other  houses  there  situated,  it  was  ap- 
proached over  a  bridge.2    In  February,  1606,  the 

1  For  the  discussions  of  the  subject,  see  the  Bibliography. 

2  This  was  probably  not  the  only  means  of  approach. 


244     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Sewer  Commission  ordered  that  "the  owners  of 
the  playhouse  called  the  Globe,  in  Maid  Lane,  shall 
before  the  20  day  of  April  next  pull  up  and  take  clean 
out  of  the  sewer  the  props  or  posts  which  stand 
under  their  bridge  on  the  north  side  of  Maid  Lane." 1 
The  ground  on  which  the  building  was  erected  was 
marshy,  and  the  foundations  were  made  by  driving 
piles  deep  into  the  soil.  Ben  Jonson  tersely  writes : 2 

The  Globe,  the  glory  of  the  Bank  .  .  .  Flanked  with 
a  ditch,  and  forced  out  of  a  marish. 

Into  the  construction  of  the  new  playhouse  went 
the  timber  and  other  materials  secured  from  the 
old  Theatre;  but  much  new  material,  of  course,  had 
to  be  added.  It  is  a  mistake  to  believe  that  the 
Globe  was  merely  the  old  "Theatre"  newly  set  up 
on  the  Bankside,  and  perhaps  strengthened  here 
and  there.  When  it  was  completed,  it  was  regarded 
as  the  last  word  in  theatrical  architecture.  Dekker 
seems  to  have  had  the  Globe  in  mind  in  the  follow- 
ing passage:  "How  wonderfully  is  the  world  al- 
tered! and  no  marvel,  for  it  has  lyein  sick  almost 
five  thousand  years :  so  that  it  is  no  more  like  the 
old  Theater  du  munde,  than  old  Paris  Garden  is  like 
the  King's  garden  at  Paris.  What  an  excellent 
workman  therefore  were  he,  that  could  cast  the 
Globe  of  it  into  a  new  mould."  3  In  1600  Henslowe 

1  Wallace,  in  the  London  Times,  April  30,  1914,  p.  10;  Notes 
and  Queries  (xi  series),  xi,  448. 

2  An  Execration  upon  Vulcan. 

3  The  Guls  Hornbook,  published  in  1609,  but  written  earlier. 


246     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

and  Alleyn  used  the  Globe  as  the  model  of  their 
new  and  splendid  Fortune.  They  sought,  indeed, 
to  show  some  originality  by  making  their  play- 
house square  instead  of  round;  but  this,  the  one 
instance  in  which  they  departed  from  the  Globe, 
was  a  mistake;  and  when  the  Fortune  was  rebuilt 
in  1623  it  was  made  circular  in  shape. 

A  few  quotations  from  the  Fortune  contract  will 
throw  some  light  upon  the  Globe : 

With  such-like  stairs,  conveyances,  and  divisions 
[to  the  galleries],  without  and  within,  as  are  made  and 
contrived  in  and  to  the  late-erected  playhouse  .  .  . 
called  the  Globe. 

And  the  said  stage  to  be  in  all  other  proportions 
contrived  and  fashioned  like  unto  the  stage  of  the 
said  playhouse  called  the  Globe. 

And  the  said  house,  and  other  things  before  men- 
tioned to  be  made  and  done,  to  be  in  all  other  contri- 
vations,  conveyances,  fashions,  thing,  and  things, 
effected,  finished  and  done  according  to  the  manner 
and  fashion  of  the  said  house  called  the  Globe,  saving 
only  that  all  the  principal  and  main  posts  .  .  .  shall 
be  square  and  wrought  pilasterwise,  with  carved 
proportions  called  satyrs  to  be  placed  and  set  on  the 
top  of  every  of  the  said  posts. 

What  kind  of  columns  were  used  in  the  Globe 
and  how  they  were  ornamented,  we  do  not  know, 
but  presumably  they  were  round.  Jonson,  in 
Every  Man  Out  of  His  Humour,  presented  on  the 
occasion  of,  or  shortly  after,  the  opening  of  the 
Globe  in  1599,  says  of  one  of  his  characters:  "A 


pq 

12 

0 

Z 

y 

- 

c 

_c 

f— 

T" 

_ 

a 

V 

c 

Pi 

— 

■5 

- 

V 

w 

u 

o 

H 

3 

«f 

h 

t> 

- 

w 

X. 

" 

O 

-.. 

P4 

- 

— 
< 

w 

b 

F-H 

* 

— 

i) 

£ 

U 
CI 

rt 

w 

n 

s. 

C 

a: 

1) 

c 

•     >   u 


w 

— 

.2 

« 

>> 

^ 

i= 

- 

v 

THE  GLOBE  247 

well-timbered  fellow!  he  would  have  made  a  good 
column  an  he  had  been  thought  on  when  the  house 
was  abuilding."  1  That  Jonson  thought  well  of  the 
new  playhouse  is  revealed  in  several  places;  he 
speaks  with  some  enthusiasm  of  "this  fair-fitted 
Globe,"  2  and  in  the  passage  already  quoted  he 
calls  it  "the  glory  of  the  Bank." 

In  shape  the  building  was  unquestionably  polyg- 
onal or  circular,  most  probably  polygonal  on  the 
outside  and  circular  within.  Mr.  E.  K.  Cham- 
bers thinks  it  possible  that  it  was  square; 3  but 
there  is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  it  was  not. 
The  very  name,  Globe,  would  hardly  be  suitable  to 
a  square  building;  Jonson  describes  the  interior  as 
a  "round";4  the  ballad  on  the  burning  of  the 
house  refers  to  the  roof  as  being  "  round  as  a  tailor's 
clew";  and  the  New  Globe,  which  certainly  was 
not  square,  was  erected  on  the  old  foundation.5 
The  frame,  we  know,  was  of  timber,  and  the  roof 

1  Jonson" s  Works,  ed.  Cunningham,  i,  71. 

2  In  the  first  quarto  edition  of  Every  Man  Out  of  His  Humour. 

3  The  Stage  of  the  Globe,  p.  356. 

4  Induction  to  Every  Man  Out  of  His  Humour  (ed.  Cunning- 
ham, 1,  66). 

6  I  have  not  space  to  discuss  the  question  further.  The  foreign 
traveler  who  visited  a  Bankside  theatre,  probably  the  Globe,  on 
July  3,  1600,  described  it  as  "Theatrum  ad  morem  antiquorum 
Romanorum  constructum  ex  lignis"  (London  Times,  April  11, 
1914).  Thomas  Heywood,  in  his  Apology  for  Actors  (1612),  de- 
scribing the  Roman  playhouses,  says:  "After  these  they  com- 
posed others,  but  differing  in  form  from  the  theatre  or  amphi- 
theatre, and  every  such  was  called  Circus,  the  frame  globe-l\ke 
and  merely  round."  The  evidence  is  cumulative,  and  almost  in- 
exhaustible. 


248     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

of  thatch.  In  front  of  the  main  door  was  suspended 
a  sign  of  Hercules  bearing  the  globe  upon  his  shoul- 
ders,1 under  which  was  written,  says  Malone,  the 
old  motto,  Totus  mundus  agit  histrionem.2 

The  earliest  representation  of  the  building  is 
probably  to  be  found  in  the  Delaram  View  of  Lon- 
don (opposite  page  246),  set  in  the  background  of 
an  engraving  of  King  James  on  horseback.  This 
view,  which  presents  the  city  as  it  was  in  1603  when 
James  came  to  the  throne,  shows  the  Bear  Garden 
at  the  left,  polygonal  in  shape,  the  Rose  in  the 
centre,  circular  in  shape,  and  the  Globe  at  the 
right,  polygonal  in  shape.  It  is  again  represented 
in  Visscher's  magnificent  View  of  London,  which, 
though  printed  in  1616,  presents  the-  city  as  it  was 
several  years  earlier  (see  page  253).  The  Merian 
View  of  1638  (opposite  page  256)  is  copied  from 
Visscher,  and  the  View  in  Howell's  Londinopolis 
(1657)  is  merely  a  slavish  copy  of  Merian;  these 
two  views,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  Globe  is  con- 
cerned, have  no  special  value.3 

The  cost  of  the  finished  building  is  not  exactly 
known.   Mr.  Wallace  observes  that  it  was  erected 

1  See  Hamlet,  n,  ii,  378.  2  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  67. 

3  The  circular  playhouse  in  Delaram's  View  is  commonly  ac- 
cepted as  a  representation  of  the  First  Globe,  but  without  reason. 
The  evidence  which  establishes  the  identity  of  the  several  play- 
houses pictured  in  the  various  maps  of  the  Bankside  comes  from  a 
careful  study  of  the  Bear  Garden,  the  Hope,  the  Rose,  the  First 
Giobe,  the  Second  Globe,  and  their  sites,  together  with  a  study  of 
all  the  maps  and  views  of  London,  considered  separately  and  in 
relation  to  one  another.  Such  evidence  is  too  complicated  to  be 
■>iven  here  in  full,  but  it  is  quite  conclusive. 


^VoBf-  SuvTJiWA&y* 


0- 


^S^ffe 


\ 


THE   FIRST  GLOBE 

From  an  old  drawing  in  an  extra-illustrated  copy  of  Pennant's  London  now  in 
the  British  Museum.  Apparently  the  drawing  is  based  on  Visscher's  View. 


THE   GLOBE  249 

"at  an  original  cost,  according  to  a  later  statement, 
of  £600,  but  upon  better  evidence  approximately 
£400."  *  I  am  not  aware  of  the  "better  evidence" 
to  which  Mr.  Wallace  refers,2  nor  do  I  know 
whether  the  estimate  of  £400  includes  the  timber 
and  materials  of  the  old  Theatre  furnished  by  the 
Burbages.  If  the  Theatre  of  1576  cost  nearly  £700, 
and  the  second  Globe  cost  £1400,  the  sum  of  £400 
seems  too  small. 

Nor  do  we  know  exactly  when  the  Globe  was 
finished  and  opened  to  the  public.  On  May  16, 
1599,  a  post-mortem  inquisition  of  the  estate  of  Sir 
Thomas  Brend,  father  of  Sir  Nicholas,  was  taken. 
Among  his  other  properties  in  Southwark  was  listed 
the  Globe  playhouse,  described  as  "vna  domo  de 
novo  ediiicata  ...  in  occupacione  Willielmi  Shake- 
speare et  aliorum."  3  From  this  statement  Mr. 
Wallace  infers  that  the  Globe  was  finished  and 
opened  before  May  16,  1599.  Though  this  is  pos- 
sible, the  words  used  seem  hardly  to  warrant  the 
conclusion.  However,  we  may  feel  sure  that  the 
actors,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Men,  had  moved 
into  the  building  before  the  end  of  the  summer. 

Almost  at  once  they  rose  to  the  position  of  lead- 
ership in  the  drama,  for  both  Shakespeare  and 
Burbage  were  now  at  the  height  of  their  powers. 
It  is  true  that  in  1601  the  popularity  of  the  Chil- 

1  The  London  Times,  October  2,  1909. 

2  Possibly  he  gives  this  evidence  in  his  The  Children  of  the 
Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  29,  note  4. 

3  Wallace,  in  the  London  Times,  May  1,  1914. 


250     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

drcn  at  Blackfriars,  and  the  subsequent  "War  of 
the  Theatres"  interfered  somewhat  with  their  suc- 
cess; but  the  interference  was  temporary,  and  from 
this  time  on  until  the  closing  of  the  playhouses 
in  1642,  the  supremacy  of  the  Globe  players  was 
never  really  challenged.  When  James  came  to  the 
throne,  he  recognized  this  supremacy  by  taking 
them  under  his  royal  patronage.  On  May  19,  1603, 
he  issued  to  them  a  patent  to  play  as  the  King's 
Men  l  —  an  honor  that  was  as  well  deserved  as  it 
was  signal. 

In  the  autumn  of  1608  the  proprietors  of  the 
Globe  acquired  the  Blackfriars  Theatre  for  the  use 
of  their  company  during  the  severe  winter  months. 
This  splendid  building,  situated  in  the  very  heart 
of  the  city,  was  entirely  roofed  in,  and  could  be 
comfortably  heated  in  cold  weather.  Henceforth 
the  open-air  Globe  was  used  only  during  the  pleas- 
ant season  of  the  year;  that  is,  according  to  the 
evidence  of  the  Herbert  Manuscript,  from  about 
the  first  of  May  until  the  first  of  November. 
**  On  June  29,  161 3,  the  Globe  caught  fire  during 
the  performance  of  a  play,  and  was  burned  to  the 
ground  —  the  first  disaster  of  the  sort  recorded  in 
English  theatrical  history.  The  event  aroused  great 
interest  in  London,  and  as  a  result  we  have  numer- 
ous accounts  of  the  catastrophe  supplying  us  with 
full  details.  We  learn  that  on  a  warm  "sunne- 
shine"  afternoon  the  large  building  was  "filled 

1  Printed  in  The  Malone  Society  Collections,  I,  264. 


V 


THE  GLOBE  251 

with  people"  —  among  whom  were  Ben  Jonson, 
John  Taylor  (the  Water-Poet),  and  Sir  Henry 
Wotton — to  witness  a  new  play  by  William  Shake- 
speare and  John  Fletcher,  called  All  is  True,  or, 
as  we  now  know  it,  Henry  VIII y  produced  with 
unusual  magnificence.  Upon  the  entrance  of  the 
King  in  the  fourth  scene  of  the  first  act,  two  cannon 
were  discharged  in  a  royal  salute.  One  of  the  can- 
non hurled  a  bit  of  its  wadding  upon  the  roof  and 
set  fire  to  the  thatch;  but  persons  in  the  audience 
were  so  interested  in  the  play  that  for  a  time  they 
paid  no  attention  to  the  fire  overhead.  As  a  result 
they  were  soon  fleeing  for  their  lives;  and  within 
''one  short  hour"  nothing  was  left  of  the  "stately" 
Globe.  .  „. 

I  quote  below  some  of  the  more  interesting  con- 
temporary accounts  of  this  notable  event.  Howes, 
the  chronicler,  thus  records  the  fact  in  his  continu- 
ation of  Stow's  Annals : 

Upon  St.  Peter's  Day  last,  the  playhouse  or  theatre 
called  the  Globe,  upon  the  Bankside,  near  London,  by 
negligent  discharge  of  a  peal  of  ordnance,  close  to  the 
south  side  thereof,  the  thatch  took  fire,  and  the  wind 
suddenly  dispersed  the  flames  round  about,  and  in  a 
very  short  space  the  whole  building  was  quite  con- 
sumed; and  no  man  hurt:  the  house  being  filled  with 
people  to  behold  the  play, -viz.  of  Henry  the  Eight.1 

Sir  Henry  Wotton,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  gives 
the  following  gossipy  account: 

1  Howes's  continuation  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1),  p.  1003. 


252     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Now  to  let  matters  of  state  sleep.  I  will  entertain 
you  at  the  present  with  what  happened  this  week  at 
the  Bankside.  The  King's  Players  had  a  new  play, 
called  All  is  True,  representing  some  principal  pieces 
of  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  which  was  set  forth 
with  many  extraordinary  circumstances  of  pomp 
and  majesty,  even  to  the  matting  of  the  stage;  the 
Knights  of  the  Order  with  their  Georges  and  Garter, 
the  guards  with  their  embroidered  coats,  and  the 
like  —  sufficient  in  truth  within  awhile  to  make 
greatness  very  familiar,  if  not  ridiculous.  Now  King 
Henry,  making  a  masque  at  the  Cardinal  Wolsey's 
house,  and  certain  cannons  being  shot  off  at  his  entry, 
some  of  the  paper  or  other  stuff  wherewith  one  of 
them  was  stopped,  did  light  on  the  thatch,  where 
being  thought  at  first  but  an  idle  smoke,  and  their 
eyes  more  attentive  to  the  show,  it  kindled  inwardly, 
and  ran  round  like  a  train,  consuming  within  less  than 
an  hour  the  whole  house  to  the  very  ground.  This 
was  the  fatal  period  of  that  virtuous  fabrick;  wherein 
yet  nothing  did  perish  but  wood  and  straw,  and  a  few 
forsaken  cloaks;  only  one  man  had  his  breeches  set  on 
fire,  that  would  perhaps  have  broiled  him,  if  he  had 
not,  by  the  benefit  of  a  provident  wit,  put  it  out  with 
bottle  ale.1 

John  Chamberlain,  writing  to  Sir  Ralph  Win- 
wood,  July  8,  1613,  refers  to  the  accident  thus: 

The  burning  of  the  Globe  or  playhouse  on  the 
Bankside  on  St.  Peter's  Day  cannot  escape  you; 
which  fell  out  by  a  peal  of  chambers  (that  I  know 
not  upon  what  occasion  were  to  be  used  in  the  play), 
the  tampin  or  stopple  of  one  of  them  lighting  in  the 
thatch  that  cover'd  the  house,  burn'd  it  down  to  the 

1  Reiiquics  Wottoniana  (ed.  1672),  p.  425. 


THE   GLOBE 


*S3 


THE  FIRST  GLOBE 

From  Visscher's  View  of  London,  published  in  1616,  but  representing  the  city 
as  it  was  several  years  earlier. 

ground  in  less  than  two  hours,  with  a  dwelling  house 
adjoining;  and  it  was  a  great  marvel  and  fair  grace 
of  God  that  the  people  had  so  little  harm,  having  but 
two  narrow  doors  to  get  out.1 

1  Ralph  Wmwood,  Memorials  of  Affairs  of  State  (ed.  1725),  111,469, 


254     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

The  Reverend  Thomas  Lorkin  writes  from  Lon- 
don to  Sir  Thomas  Puckering  under  the  date  of 
June  30,  1613: 

No  longer  since  than  yesterday,  while  Burbage's 
company  were  acting  at  the  Globe  the  play  of  Henry 
Fill,  and  there  shooting  off  certain  chambers  in  way 
of  triumph,  the  fire  catched  and  fastened  upon  the 
thatch  of  the  house,  and  there  burned  so  furiously,  as 
it  consumed  the  whole  house,  all  in  less  than  two  hours, 
the  people  having  enough  to  do  to  save  themselves.1 

A  contemporary  ballad  2  gives  a  vivid  and  amus- 
ing account  of  the  disaster: 

A  Sonnet  upon  the  Pitiful  Burning  of  the  Globe 
Playhouse  in  London 

Now  sit  thee  down,  Melpomene, 
Wrapt  in  a  sea-coal  robe, 
And  tell  the  dolefull  tragedy 
That  late  was  played  at  Globe; 
For  no  man  that  can  sing  and  say 
Was  scared  on  St.  Peter's  day. 

Oh  sorrow,  pitiful  sorrow,  and  yet  all  this  is  true.3 

All  you  that  please  to  understand, 
Come  listen  to  my  story; 
To  see  Death  with  his  raking  brand 
Mongst  such  an  auditory; 

1  Printed  in  Birch,  The  Court  and  Times  of  James  the  First 
(1849),  1,  251. 

2  Printed  by  Haslewood  in  The  Gentleman' s  Magazine  (1816), 
from  an  old  manuscript  volume  of  poems.  Printed  also  by  Halli- 
well-Phillipps  {Outlines,  1,  310)  "from  a  manuscript  of  the  early 
part  of  the  seventeenth  century  of  unquestionable  authenticity." 
Perhaps  it  is  the  same  as  the  "Doleful  Ballad"  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register,  1613.  I  follow  Halliwell-Phillipps's  text,  but 
omit  the  last  three  stanzas. 

3  Punning  on  the  title  All  is  True. 


THE   GLOBE  255 

Regarding  neither  Cardinall's  might, 
Nor  yet  the  rugged  face  of  Henry  the  eight. 
Oh  sorrow,  etc. 

This  fearful  fire  began  above, 
A  wonder  strange  and  true, 
And  to  the  stage-house  did  remove, 
As  round  as  taylor's  clew, 
And  burnt  down  both  beam  and  snagg, 
And  did  not  spare  the  silken  flagg. 
Oh  sorrow,  etc. 

Out  run  the  Knights,  out  run  the  lords, 
And  there  was  great  ado; 
Some  lost  their  hats,  and  some  their  swords; 
Then  out  run  Burbage,  too. 
The  reprobates,  though  drunk  on  Monday, 
Prayd  for  the  fool  and  Henry  Condy. 
Oh  sorrow,  etc. 

The  periwigs  and  drum-heads  fry 
Like  to  a  butter  firkin; 
A  woeful  burning  did  betide 
To  many  a  good  buff  jerkin. 
Then  with  swolen  eyes,  like  drunken  Flemminges 
Distressed  stood  old  stuttering  Heminges. 
Oh  sorrow,  etc. 

Ben  Jonson,  who  saw  the  disaster,  left  us  the 
following  brief  account : 

The  Globe,  the  glory  of  the  Bank, 
Which,  though  it  were  the  fort  of  the  whole  parish, 
Flanked  with  a  ditch,  and  forced  out  of  a  marish, 
I  saw  with  two  poor  chambers  taken  in, 
And  razed  ere  thought  could  urge  this  might  have  been! 
See  the  world's  ruins!  nothing  but  the  piles 
Left  —  and  wit  since  to  cover  it  with  tiles.1 

1  An  Execration  upon  Vulcan. 


2S6     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

The  players  were  not  seriously  inconvenienced, 
for  they  could  shift  to  their  other  house,  the  Black- 
friars,  in  the  city.  The  owners  of  the  building, 
however,  suffered  a  not  inconsiderable  pecuniary 
loss.  For  a  time  they  hesitated  about  rebuilding, 
one  cause  of  their  hesitation  being  the  short  term 
that  their  lease  of  the  ground  had  to  run.  Possibly 
a  second  cause  was  a  doubt  as  to  the  ownership 
of  the  ground,  arising  from  certain  transactions 
recorded  below.  In  October,  1600,  Sir  Nicholas 
Brend  had  been  forced  to  transfer  the  Globe  estate, 
with  other  adjacent  property,  to  Sir  Matthew 
Brown  and  John  Collett  as  security  for  a  debt  of 
£2500;  and  a  few  days  after  he  died.  Since  the  son 
and  heir,  Matthew  Brend,  was  a  child  less  than 
two  years  old,  an  uncle,  Sir  John  Bodley,  was  ap- 
pointed trustee.  In  1608  Bodley,  by  unfair  means, 
it  seems,  purchased  from  Collett  the  Globe  prop- 
erty, and  thus  became  the  landlord  of  the  actors. 
But  young  Matthew  Brend  was  still  under  age,  and 
Bodley's  title  to  the  property  was  not  regarded  as 
above  suspicion.1 

Four  months  after  the  burning  of  the  Globe,  on 
October  26,  161 3,  Sir  John  Bodley  granted  the 
proprietors  of  the  building  a  renewal  of  the  lease 
with  an  extension  of  the  term  until  December  25, 
1635. 2   But  a  lease  from  Bodley  alone,  in  view  of 

1  These  interesting  facts  were  revealed  by  Mr.  Wallace  in  the 
London  Times,  April  30  and  May  1,  1914. 

2  Did  he  increase  the  amount  of  the  rental  to  £25  per  annum? 
The  rent  paid  for  the  Blackfriars  was  £40  per  annum;  in  1635  the 


--    -1 

s  — 


O  _- 

2  P 

2  £ 

O  ~ 

J  .a 


w 


3  o 


w  5  .; 
—  —  s 
>  1* 

-X    3..- 

Z    «j   3 

<-;C 
2    ^| 

3  S 

i  =. 

o  <u 
jp  >- 

a"*  « 

^  "-S 

'■"  ?  o 

-  c.  -r. 
—     ™     t- 

i>      -    ■£ 

5:  E  o 
«  d  _ 
c  *j  E 
She 

C  3  u. 
**"  ^  "a: 

=  S  =' 

2  2° 

'■3  r^  '3 
en    0  — 

is 

s  M 


THE  GLOBE  257 

the  facts  just  indicated,  was  not  deemed  sufficient; 
so  on  February  14,  1614,  Heminges,  the  two  Bur- 
bages,  and  Condell  visited  the  country-seat  of  the 
Brends,  and  secured  the  signature  of  the  young 
Matthew  Brend,  and  of  his  mother  as  guardian,  to 
a  lease  of  the  Globe  site  with  a  term  ending  on 
December  25,  1644. 

Protected  by  these  two  leases,  the  Globe  sharers 
felt  secure;  and  they  went  forward  apace  with  the 
erection  of  their  new  playhouse.  They  made  an 
assessment  of  "£50  or  £60"  upon  each  share.1 
Since  at  this  time  there  were  fourteen  shares,  the 
amount  thus  raised  was  £700  or  £840.  This  would 
probably  be  enough  to  erect  a  building  as  large  and 
as  well  equipped  as  the  old  Globe.  But  the  proprie- 
tors determined  upon  a  larger  and  a  very  much 
handsomer  building.  As  Howes,  the  continuer  of 
Stow's  Annals,  writes,  "it  was  new  builded  in  far 
fairer  manner  than  before";  or  as  John  Taylor,  the 
Water-Poet,  puts  it: 

As  gold  is  better  that's  in  fire  tried, 

So  is  the  Bankside  Globe  that  late  was  burn'd.  2 

Naturally  the  cost  of  rebuilding  exceeded  the 
original  estimate.  Heminges  tells  us  that  on  one 
share,  or  one-fourteenth,  he  was  required  to  pay 
for  "the  re-edifying  about  the  sum  of  £120."  3 

young  actors  state  that  the  housekeepers  paid  for  both  playhouses 
"  not  above  £65." 

1  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  60. 

2  Works  (1630),  p.  31;  The  Spenser  Society  reprint,  p.  515. 

3  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  61. 


258     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

This  would  indicate  a  total  cost  of  " about"  £1680. 
Heminges  should  know,  for  he  was  the  business 
manager  of  the  organization;  and  his  truthfulness 
cannot  be  questioned.  Since,  however,  the  ad- 
jective "about,"  especially  when  multiplied  by 
fourteen,  leaves  a  generous  margin  of  uncer- 
tainty, it  is  gratifying  to  have  a  specific  statement 
from  one  of  the  sharers  in  1635  that  the  owners  had 
"been  at  the  charge  of  £1400  in  building  of  the 
said  house  upon  the  burning  down  of  the  former."  ■ 
Heminges  tells  us  that  "he  found  that  the  re-edify- 
ing of  the  said  playhouse  would  be  a  very  great 
charge,"  and  that  he  so  "doubted  what  benefit 
would  arise  thereby"  that  he  actually  gave  away 
half  of  one  share  "to  Henry  Condell,  gratis."  2 
But  his  fears  were  unfounded.  We  learn  from 
Witter  that  after  the  rebuilding  of  the  Globe  the 
"yearly  value"  of  a  share  was  greater  "by  much" 
than  it  had  been  before.3 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  I,  316.  This  evidence  seems  to 
me  unimpeachable.  I  should  add,  however,  that  Mr.  Wallace 
considers  the  estimate  "excessive,"  and  says  that  he  has  "other 
contemporary  documents  showing  the  cost  was  far  less  than 
£1400."    (The  London  Times,  October  2,  1909.) 

2  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  61.  There 
is,  I  think,  no  truth  in  the  statement  made  by  the  inaccurate 
annotator  of  the  Phillipps  copy  of  Stow's  Annals,  that  the  Globe 
was  built  "  at  the  great  charge  of  King  James  and  many  noblemen 
and  others."  (See  The  Academy,  October  28,  1882,  p.  314.)  The 
Witter-Heminges  documents  sufficiently  disprove  that.  We  may 
well  believe,  however,  that  the  King  and  his  noblemen  were  in- 
terested in  the  new  building,  and  encouraged  the  actors  in  many 
ways. 

3  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  70. 


THE  GLOBE  259 

The  New  Globe,  like  hs  predecessor,  was  built  of 
timber,1  and  on  the  same  site  —  indeed  the  car- 
penters made  use  of  the  old  foundation,  which 
seems  not  to  have  been  seriously  injured.  In  a 
"return"  of  1634,  preserved  at  St.  Saviour's,  we 
read:  "The  Globe  playhouse,  near  Maid  Lane, 
built  by  the  company  of  players,  with  a  dwelling 
house  thereto  adjoining,  built  with  timber,  about 
20  years  past,  upon  an  old  foundation."  2  In 
spite  of  the  use  made  of  the  old  foundation,  the 
new  structure  was  unquestionably  larger  than 
the  First  Globe;  Marmion,  in  the  Prologue  to 
Holland's  Leaguer,  acted  at  Salisbury  Court  in 
1634,  speaks  of  "the  vastness  of  the  Globe,"  and 
Shirley,  in  the  Prologue  to  Rosania,  applies  the 
adjective  "vast"  to  the  building.  Moreover,  the 
builders  had  "the  wit,"  as  Jonson  tells  us,  "to 
cover  it  with  tiles."  John  Taylor,  the  Water-Poet, 
writes : 

For  where  before  it  had  a  thatched  hide, 
Now  to  a  stately  theatre  is  turn'd. 

The  Second  Globe  is  represented,  but  unsatis- 
factorily, in  Hollar's  View  of  London,  dated  1647 
(opposite  page  260).  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
artist  was   in  banishment  from   1643    (at  which 

1  I  see  no  reason  to  accept  Mr.  Wallace's  suggestion  (The  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  34,  note  7)  that  "it  seems 
questionable,  but  not  unlikely,  that  the  timber  framework  was 
brick-veneered  and  plastered  over."  Mr.  Wallace  mistakenly 
accepts  Wilkinson's  view  of  the  second  Fortune  as  genuine. 

8  Rendle,  Bankside,  p.  xvn. 


i6o    SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

time  the  Globe  was  still  standing)  until  1652,  and 
hence,  in  drawing  certain  buildings,  especially 
those  not  reproduced  in  earlier  views  of  London, 
he  may  have  had  to  rely  upon  his  memory.  This 
would  explain  the  general  vagueness  of  his  repre- 
sentation of  the  Globe. 

The  construction  was  not  hurried,  for  the  players 
had  Blackfriars  as  a  home.  Under  normal  condi- 
tions they  did  not  move  from  the  city  to  the  Bank- 
side  until  some  time  in  May;  and  shortly  after  that 
date,  in  the  early  summer  of  16 14,  the  New  Globe 
was  ready  for  them.  John  Chamberlain  writes  to 
Mrs.  Alice  Carleton  on  June  30,  1614: 

I  have  not  seen  your  sister  Williams  since  I  came 
to  town,  though  I  have  been  there  twice.  The  first 
time  she  was  at  a  neighbor's  house  at  cards,  and  the 
next  she  was  gone  to  the  New  Globe  to  a  play.  In- 
deed, I  hear  much  speech  of  this  new  playhouse,  which 
is  said  to  be  the  fairest  that  ever  was  in  England.1 

With  this  New  Globe  Shakespeare  had  little  to 
do,  for  his  career  as  a  playwright  had  been  run,  and 
probably  he  had  already  retired  from  acting.  Time, 
indeed,  was  beginning  to  thin  out  the  little  band 
of  friends  who  had  initiated  and  made  famous  the 
Globe  organization.  Thomas  Pope  had  died  in 
1603,  Augustine  Phillips  in  1605,  William  Slye  in 
1608,  and,  just  a  few  months  after  the  opening  of 
the  new  playhouse,  William  Osteler,  who  had  been 

1  Birch,  The  Court  and  Times  of  James  the  First,  I,  329;  quoted 
by  Wallace,  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  p.  35. 


THE   SECOND    GLOBE 
From  Hollars  View  of  London  (1647). 


THE  GLOBE  261 

admitted  to  the  partnership  in  161 1.  He  had 
begun  his  career  as  a  child-actor  at  Blackfriars, 
had  later  joined  the  King's  Men,  and  had  married 
Heminges's  daughter  Thomasine. 

A  more  serious  blow  to  the  company,  however, 
fell  in  April,  1616,  when  Shakespeare  himself  died. 
To  the  world  he  had  been  "the  applause,  delight, 
the  wonder"  of  the  stage;  but  to  the  members  of 
the  Globe  Company  he  had  been  for  many  years 
a  "friend  and  fellow."  Only  Burbage  and  Hem- 
inges  (described  in  1614  as  "old  Heminges"),  now 
remained  of  the  original  venturers.  And  Burbage 
passed  away  on  March  13,  1619: 

He's  gone!  and  with  him  what  a  world  are  dead 
Which  he  reviv'd  —  to  be  revived  so 
No  more.  Young  Hamlet,  old  Hieronimo, 
Kind  Lear,  the  grieved  Moor,  and  more  beside 
That  lived  in  him  have  now  for  ever  died !  1 

Many  elegies  in  a  similar  vein  were  written  cele- 
brating his  wonderful  powers  as  an  actor;  yet  the 
tribute  that  perhaps  affects  us  most  deals  with  him 
merely  as  a  man.  The  Earl  of  Pembroke,  writing 
to  the  Ambassador  to  Germany,  gives  the  court 
news  about  the  mighty  ones  of  the  kingdom:  "My 
Lord  of  Lenox  made  a  great  supper  to  the  French 
Ambassador  this  night  here,  and  even  now  all  the 
company  are  at  a  play;  which  I,  being  tender- 

1  From  a  folio  MS.  in  the  Huth  Library,  printed  by  J.  P.  Collier 
in  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  1,  411,  and  by 
various  others. 


262     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 


hearted,  could  not  endure  to  see  so  soon  after  the 
loss  of  my  old  acquaintance  Burbage."  ' 

In  1623  Heminges  and  Condell,  with  great 
"care  and  paine,"  collected  and  published  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare,  "onely  to  keep  the  mem- 
ory of  so  worthy  a  Friend  and  Fellow  alive"; 

and   shortly  after, 


they  too  died,  Con- 
dell in  1627  and 
Heminges  in  1630. 
After  the  pass- 
ing of  this  group  of 
men,  whose  names 
are  so  familiar  to  us, 
the  history  of  the 
playhouse  seems 
less  important,  and 
may  be  chronicled 
briefly. 

When  young  Matthew  Brend  came  of  age  he 
recovered  possession  of  the  Globe  property  by  a 
decree  of  the  Court  of  Wards.  Apparently  he  ac- 
cepted the  lease  executed  by  his  uncle  and  guar- 
dian, Bodley,  by  which  the  actors  were  to  remain  in 
possession  of  the  Globe  until  December  25,  1635; 
but  in  1633  he  sought  to  cancel  the  lease  he  himself 
had  executed  as  a  minor,  by  which  the  actors  were 
to  remain  in  possession  until  1644.  His  purpose  in 

1  Printed  by  Mrs.  Stopes,  Burbage  and  Shakespeare's  Stage, 
p.  117,  with  many  other  interesting  references  to  the  great  actor. 


THE  TRADITIONAL  SITE  OF 
THE  GLOBE 

From  Wilkinson's  Theatrum  Illustrata 
(1825).  This  site  is  still  advocated  by  some 
scholars.    Compare  page  24s. 


THE  GLOBE  163 

thus  seeking  to  gain  possession  of  the  Globe  was  to 
lease  it  to  other  actors  at  a  material  increase  in  his 
profits.1  Naturally  the  owners  of  the  Globe  were 
alarmed,  and  they  brought  suit  in  the  Court  of  Re- 
quests. In  1635,  one  of  the  sharers,  John  Shanks, 
declares  that  he  "is  without  any  hope  to  renew" 
the  lease;  and  he  refers  thus  to  the  suit  against 
Brend:  "When  your  suppliant  purchased  his  parts 
[in  1634]  ne  nad  no  certainty  thereof  more  than  for 
one  year  in  the  Globe,  and  there  was  a  chargeable 
suit  then  pending  in  the  Court  of  Requests  between 
Sir  Mathew  Brend,  Knight,  and  the  lessees  of  the 
Globe  and  their  assigns,  for  the  adding  of  nine 
years  to  their  lease  in  consideration  that  their 
predecessors  had  formerly  been  at  the  charge  of 
£1400  in  building  of  the  said  house."  2  The  lessees 
ultimately  won  their  contention,  and  thus  secured 
the  right  to  occupy  the  Globe  until  December  25, 
1644  —  a  term  which,  as  it  happened,  was  quite 
long  enough,  for  the  Puritans  closed  all  playhouses 
in  1642. 

What  disposition,  if  any,  the  sharers  made  of  the 
Globe  between  1642  and  1644  we  do  not  know. 
But  before  the  lease  expired,  it  seems,  Brend  de- 
molished the  playhouse  and  erected  tenements  on 

1  Wallace,  "  Shakespeare  and  the  Globe,"  in  the  London  Times, 
April  30  and  May  I,  1914. 

2  The  Petition  of  the  Young  Actors,  printed  by  Halliwell- 
Phillipps,  Outlines,  1,  312.  Mrs.  Stopes,  in  Burbage  and  Shake- 
speare's Stage,  p.  129,  refers  to  a  record  of  the  suit  mentioned  by 
Shanks,  dated  February  6,  1634. 


264     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

its  site.  In  the  manuscript  notes  to  the  Phillipps 
copy  of  Stow's  Annals,  we  find  the  statement 
that  the  Globe  was  "pulled  down  to  the  ground 
by  Sir  Mathew  Brcnd,  on  Monday  the  15  of 
April,  1644,  to  make  tenements  in  the  room  of 
it";1  and  the  statement  is  verified  by  a  mortgage, 
executed  in  1706,  between  Elizabeth,  the  surviv- 
ing daughter  and  heir  of  Thomas  Brend,  and  one 
William  James,  citizen  of  London.  The  mortgage 
concerns  "all  those  messuages  or  tenements  .  .  . 
most  of  which  .  .  .  were  erected  and  built  where  the 
late  playhouse  called  the  Globe  stood,  and  upon 
the  ground  thereunto  belonging."  2 

After  this  the  history  of  the  property  becomes 
obscure.  Mrs.  Thrale  (later  Mrs.  Piozzi),  the  friend 
of  Samuel  Johnson,  whose  residence  was  near  by 
in  Deadman's  Place,  thought  that  she  saw  certain 
"  remains  of  the  Globe"  discovered  by  workmen  in 
the  employ  of  her  husband : 3  "  For  a  long  time, 
then,  —  or  I  thought  it  such,  —  my  fate  was  bound 
up  with  the  old  Globe  Theatre,  upon  the  Bankside, 
Southwark;  the  alley  it  had  occupied  having  been 
purchased  and  [the  tenements]  thrown  down  by 
Mr.  Thrale  to  make  an  opening  before  the  windows 
of  our  dwelling-house.  When  it  lay  desolate  in  a 
black  heap  of  rubbish,  my  mother  one  day  in  a 

1  Printed  in  The  Academy,  October  28,  1882,  p.  314.  Should 
we  read  the  date  as  1644/5? 

2  William  Martin,  The  Site  of  the  Globe,  p.  171. 

s  Printed  in  The  Builder,  March  26,  1910,  from  the  Conway 
MSS.  in  Mrs.  Thrale's  handwriting. 


THE   GLOBE  16$ 

joke  called  it  the  Ruins  of  Palmyra;  and  after  that 
they  had  laid  it  down  in  a  grass-plot  Palmyra  was 
the  name  it  went  by.  .  .  .  But  there  were  really  cu- 
rious remains  of  the  old  Globe  Playhouse,  which 
though  hexagonal  in  form  without,  was  round 
within."  In  spite  of  serious  difficulties  in  this  nar- 
rative it  is  possible  that  the  workmen,  in  digging 
the  ground  preparatory  to  laying  out  the  garden, 
uncovered  the  foundation  of  the  Globe,  which,  it 
will  be  recalled,  was  formed  of  piles  driven  deep 
into  the  soil,  and  so  well  made  that  it  resisted  the 
fire  of  161 3. 1 

At  the  present  time  the  site  of  the  Globe  is  cov- 
ered by  the  extensive  brewery  of  Messrs.  Barclay, 
Perkins,  and  Company.  Upon  one  of  the  walls  of 
the  brewery,  on  the  south  side  of  Park  Street, 
which  was  formerly  Maiden  Lane,  has  been  placed 
a  bronze  memorial  tablet2  showing  in  relief  the 
Bankside,  with  what  is  intended  to  be  the  Globe 
Playhouse  conspicuously  displayed  in  the  fore- 
ground. This  is  a  circular  building  designed  after 
the  circular  playhouse  in  the  Speed-Hondius  View 
of  London,  and  represents,  as  I  have  tried  to  show, 
not  the  Globe,  but  the  Rose.  At  the  left  side  of 

1  For  later  discoveries  of  supposed  Globe  relics,  all  very  doubt- 
ful, see  the  London  Times,  October  8,  1909;  George  Hubbard, 
The  Site  of  the  Globe  Theatre  ;  and  William  Martin,  The  Site  of  the 
Globe,  p.  201. 

2  The  tablet  was  designed  by  Dr.  William  Martin  and  executed 
by  Professor  Lanteri.  For  photographs  of  it  and  of  the  place  in 
which  it  is  erected,  see  The  London  Illustrated  News,  October  9, 
1909,  cxxxv,  500. 


266     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

the  tablet  is  a  bust  of  the  poet  modeled  after  the 
Droeshout  portrait.  At  the  right  is  the  simple 
inscription: 

HERE  STOOD  THE  GLOBE  PLAYHOUSE  OF 
SHAKESPEARE 

Yet  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Globe  really 
stood  there.  Mr.  Wallace  has  produced  good  evi- 
dence to  show  that  the  building  was  on  the  north 
side  of  Park  Street  near  the  river;  and  in  the 
course  of  the  present  study  I  have  found  that  site 
generally  confirmed. 


f- 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  FORTUNE 

THE  erection  of  the  Globe  on  the  Bankside 
within  a  few  hundred  yards  of  the  Rose  was 
hardly  gratifying  to  the  Admiral's  Men.  Not  only 
did  it  put  them  in  close  competition  with  the  excel- 
lent Burbage-Shakespeare  organization,  but  it 
caused  their  playhouse  (now  nearly  a  quarter  of  a 
century  old,  and  said  to  be  in  a  state  of  "dangerous 
decay")  to  suffer  in  comparison  with  the  new  and 
far  handsomer  Globe,  "the  glory  of  the  Bank." 
Accordingly,  before  the  Globe  had  been  in  oper- 
ation much  more  than  half  a  year,  Henslowe  and 
Alleyn  decided  to  move  to  another  section  of  Lon- 
don, and  to  erect  there  a  playhouse  that  should 
surpass  the  Globe  both  in  size  and  in  magnificence. 
To  the  authorities,  however,  they  gave  as  reasons 
for  abandoning  the  Rose,  first,  "the  dangerous  de- 
cay" of  the  building,  and  secondly,  "for  that  the 
same  standeth  very  noisome  for  resort  of  people  in 
the  winter  time." 

The  new  playhouse  was  undertaken  by  Henslowe 
and  Alleyn  jointly,  although  the  exact  arrange- 
ment between  them  is  not  now  clear.  Alleyn  seems 
to  have  advanced  the  money  and  to  have  held  the 
titles  of  ownership;  but  on  April  4,  1601,  he  leased 


268     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

to  Henslowe  a  moiety  (or  one-half  interest)  in  the 
playhouse  and  other  properties  connected  with  it 
for  a  period  of  twenty-four  years  at  an  annual  ren- 
tal of  £8  —  a  sum  far  below  the  real  value  of  the 
moiety.1 

Whatever  the  details  of  the  arrangement  be- 
tween the  two  partners,  the  main  outlines  of  their 
procedure  are  clear.  On  December  22,  1599,  Alleyn 
purchased  for  £240  a  thirty-three-year  lease  2  of  a 
plot  of  ground  situated  to  the  north  of  the  city,  in 
the  Parish  of  St.  Giles  without  Cripplegate.  This 
plot  of  ground,  we  are  told,  stood  "very  tolerable, 
near  unto  the  Fields,  and  so  far  distant  and  remote 
from  any  person  or  place  of  account  as  that  none 
can  be  annoyed  thereby"; 3  and  yet,  as  the  Earl  of 
Nottingham  wrote,  it  was  "very  convenient  for 
the  ease  of  people."  4 

The  property  thus  acquired  lay  between  Gold- 
ing  Lane  and  Whitecross  Street,  two  parallel  thor- 
oughfares running  north  and  south.  There  were 
tenements   on   the  edge  of  the  property  facing 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  25;  Wallace,  Three  London  Thea- 
tres, p.  53.  Later,  Alleyn  rented  to  the  actors  the  playhouse  alone 
for  £200  per  annum.  In  the  document,  Alleyn  v.  William  Hens- 
lowe, published  by  Mr.  Wallace  in  Three  London  Theatres,  p.  52, 
it  is  revealed  that  this  annual  rental  of  £8  was  canceled  by  Al- 
leyn's  rental  of  a  house  from  Henslowe  on  the  Bankside;  hence  no 
actual  payments  by  Henslowe  appear  in  the  Henslowe-Alleyn 
papers. 

1  Later,  by  a  series  of  negotiations  ending  in  1610,  Alleyn  se- 
cured the  freehold  of  the  property.  The  total  cost  to  him  was 
£800.   See  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  pp.  14,  17,  108. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  50.  *  Ibid.,  p.  49;  cf.  p.  51. 


THE   FORTUNE  269 

Whitecross  Street,  tenements  on  the  edge  facing 
Golding  Lane,  and  an  open  space  between.  Alleyn 
and  Henslowe  planned  to  erect  their  new  playhouse 
in  this  open  space  "between  Whitecross  Street  and 
Golding  Lane,"  and  to  make  "a  way  leading  to  it" 
from  Golding  Lane.  The  ground  set  aside  for  the 
playhouse  is  described  as  "containing  in  length 
from  east  to  west  one  hundred  twenty  and  seven 
feet  and  a  half,  a  little  more  or  less,  and  in  breadth, 
from  north  to  south,  one  hundred  twenty  and  nine 
feet,  a  little  more  or  less."  * 

The  lease  of  this  property  having  been  consum- 
mated on  December  22,  1599,  on  January  8,  1600, 
Henslowe  and  Alleyn  signed  a  contract  with  the 
carpenter,  Peter  Street  (who  had  recently  gained 
valuable  experience  in  building  the  Globe),  to  erect 
the  new  playhouse.  The  contract  called  for  the 
completion  of  the  building  by  July  25,  1600,  pro- 
vided, however,  the  workmen  were  "not  by  any 
authority  restrained." 

The  latter  clause  may  indicate  that  Peter  Street 
anticipated  difficulties.  If  so,  he  was  not  mistaken, 
for  when  early  in  January  his  workmen  began  to 
assemble  material  for  the  erection  of  the  building, 
the  authorities,  especially  those  of  the  Parish  of  St. 
Giles,  promptly  interfered.  Alleyn  thereupon  ap- 
pealed to  the  patron  of  the  troupe,  the  Earl  of 

1  Collier,  The  Alleyn  Papers,  p.  98.  For  a  slightly  different 
measurement  of  the  plot  see  Collier,  Memoirs  of  Edward  Alleyn, 
p.  167. 


27o     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Nottingham,  the  Lord  Admiral.  On  January  12, 
1600,  Nottingham  issued  a  warrant  to  the  officers 
of  the  county  "  to  permit  and  suffer  my  said  servant 
[Edward  Alleyn]  to  proceed  in  the  effecting  and 
furnishing  of  the  said  new  house,  without  any  your 
let  or  molestation  toward  him  or  any  of  his  work- 
men." *  This  warrant,  however,  seems  not  to  have 
prevented  the  authorities  of  St.  Giles  from  con- 
tinuing their  restraint.  Alleyn  was  then  forced  to 
play  his  trump  card  —  through  his  great  patron  to 
secure  from  the  Privy  Council  itself  a  warrant  for 
the  construction  of  the  building.  First,  however, 
by  offering  "  to  give  a  very  liberal  portion  of  money 
weekly"  towards  the  relief  of  "the  poor  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Giles,"  he  persuaded  many  of  the  in- 
habitants to  sign  a  document  addressed  to  the 
Privy  Council,  in  which  they  not  only  gave  their 
full  consent  to  the  erection  of  the  playhouse,  but 
actually  urged  "that  the  same  might  proceed."  2 
This  document  he  placed  in  the  hands  of  Notting- 
ham to  use  in  influencing  the  Council.  The  effort 
was  successful.  On  April  8  the  Council  issued  a 
warrant  "to  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  of  the  County 
of  Middlesex,  especially  of  St.  Giles  without  Crip- 
plegate,  and  to  all  others  whom  it  shall  concern," 
that  they  should  permit  Henslowe  and  Alleyn  "to 
proceed  in  the  effecting  and  finishing  of  the  same 
new  house."  3 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  49. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  50.  *  Ibid.,  p.  51. 


THE   SITE   OF   THE   FORTUXF    PLAVHOl  SE 


The  site  of  the  Fortune  is  marked  by  Playhouse  Yard,  connecting  GoMen-tar.e  ?nd 
Whitecross  Street.    (From  Ogilby  and  Morgan's  Ivlap  af- London,  io\~,i)     \'m 


THE  FORTUNE  271 

This  warrant,  of  course,  put  an  end  to  all  inter- 
ference by  local  authorities.  But  as  the  playhouse 
reared  itself  high  above  the  walls  of  the  city  to  the 
north,  the  Puritans  were  aroused  to  action.  They 
made  this  the  occasion  for  a  most  violent  attack  on 
actors  and  theatres  in  general,  and  on  the  Fortune 
in  particular.  With  this  attack  the  city  authorities, 
for  reasons  of  their  own,  heartily  sympathized,  but 
they  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  Parish  of  St. 
Giles,  or  over  the  other  localities  in  which  play- 
houses were  situated.  Since  the  Privy  Council  had 
specially  authorized  the  erection  of  the  Fortune, 
the  Lord  Mayor  shifted  the  attack  to  that  body, 
and  himself  dispatched  an  urgent  request  to  the 
Lords  for  reformation.  In  response  to  all  this  agita- 
tion the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council  on  June  22, 
1600,  issued  the  following  order: 

Whereas  divers  complaints  have  heretofore  been 
made  unto  the  Lords  and  other  of  Her  Majesty's 
Privy  Council  of  the  manifold  abuses  and  disorders 
that  have  grown  and  do  continue  by  occasion  of  many 
houses  erected  and  employed  in  and  about  London 
for  common  stage-plays;  and  now  very  lately  by  rea- 
son of  some  complaint  exhibited  by  sundry  persons 
against  the  building  of  the  like  house  in  or  near  Gold- 
ing  Lane  .  .  .  the  Lords  and  the  rest  of  Her  Majesty's 
Privy  Council  with  one  and  full  consent  have  ordered 
in  manner  and  form  as  follows.  First,  that  there  shall 
be  about  the  city  two  houses,  and  no  more,  allowed 
to  serve  for  the  use  of  the  common  stage-plays;  of  the 
which  houses,  one  [the  Globel  shall  be  in  Surrey,  in 
that  place  which  is  commonly  called  the  Bankside  or 


272     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

thereabouts,  and  the  other  [the  Fortune]  in  Middle- 
Secondly,  ...  it  is  likewise  ordered  that  the  two 
several  companies  of  players  assigned  unto  the  two 
houses  allowed  may  play  each  of  them  in  their  several 
houses  twice  a  week  and  no  oftener;  and  especially 
that  they  shall  refrain  to  play  on  the  Sabbath  day 
.  .  .  and  that  they  shall  forbear  altogether  in  the  time 
of  Lent. 

The  first  part  of  this  order,  limiting  the  play- 
houses and  companies  to  two,  was  merely  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  order  of  1598.1  It  meant  that  the  Lords 
of  the  Privy  Council  formally  licensed  the  Admi- 
ral's and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Companies  to 
play  in  London  (of  course  the  Lords  might,  when 
they  saw  fit,  license  other  companies  for  specific 
periods).  The  second  part  of  the  order,  limiting  the 
number  of  performances,  was  more  serious,  for 
no  troupe  could  afford  to  act  only  twice  a  week. 
The  order  if  carried  out  would  mean  the  ruin  of  the 
Fortune  and  the  Globe  Companies.  But  it  was  not 
carried  out.  The  actors,  as  we  learn  from  Henslowe's 
Diary,  did  not  restrict  themselves  to  two  plays  a 
week.  Why,  then,  did  the  Lords  issue  this  order, 
and  why  was  it  not  put  into  effect  ?  A  study  of  the 
clever  way  in  which  Alleyn,  Nottingham,  and  the 
Privy  Council  overcame  the  opposition  of  the 
puritanical  officers  of  St.  Giles  who  were  interfering 
with  the  erection  of  the  Fortune  will  suggest  the  ex- 
planation. The  Lords  were  making  a  shrewd  move 
to  quiet  the  noisy  enemies  of  the  drama.  They  did 

1  See  page  1 74. 


THE   FORTUNE  a73 

not  intend  that  the  Admiral's  and  the  Chamber- 
lain's Men  should  be  driven  out  of  existence;  they 
were  merely  meeting  fanaticism  with  craft. 

Alleyn  and  Henslowemust  have  understood  this, 
—  possibly  they  learned  it  directly  from  their  pa- 
tron Nottingham,  —  for  they  proceeded  with  the 
erection  of  their  expensive  building.  The  work, 
however,  had  been  so  seriously  delayed  by  the  re- 
straints of  the  local  authorities  that  the  foundations 
were  not  completed  until  May  8.1  On  that  day 
carpenters  were  brought  from  Windsor,  and  set  to 
the  task  of  erecting  the  frame.  Since  the  materials 
had  been  accumulating  on  the  site  since  January 
17,  the  work  of  erection  must  have  proceeded  rap- 
idly. The  daily  progress  of  this  work  is  marked  in 
Henslowe's  Diary  by  the  dinners  of  Henslowe  with 
the  contractor,  Peter  Street.  On  August  8,  these 
dinners  ceased,  so  that  on  that  date,  or  shortly 
after,  we  may  assume,  the  building  proper  was 
finished.2 

For  erecting  the  building  Street  received  £440. 
But  this  did  not  include  the  painting  of  the  wood- 
work (which,  if  we  may  judge  from  De  Witt's  de- 
scription of  the  Swan,  must  have  been  costly),  or 
the  equipment  of  the  stage.  We  learn  from  Al- 
leyn's  memoranda  that  the  final  cost  of  the  play- 
house was  £520.3    Hence,  after  Street's  work  of 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  10. 

2  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  i,  158-59. 

3  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  108. 


274     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

erection  was  finished  in  August,  the  entire  building 
had  to  be  painted,  and  the  stage  properly  equipped 
with  curtains,  hangings,  machines,  etc.  This  must 
have  occupied  at  least  two  months.  From  Hens- 
lowe's  Diary  it  appears  that  the  playhouse  was 
first  used  about  the  end  of  November  or  the  early 
part  of  December,  1600.1 

The  original  contract  of  Henslowe  and  Alleyn 
with  Peter  Street  for  the  erection  of  the  Fortune, 
preserved  among  the  papers  at  Dulwich  College, 
supplies  us  with  some  very  exact  details  of  the  size 
and  shape  of  the  building.  Although  the  document 
is  long,  and  is  couched  in  the  legal  verbiage  of  the 
day,  it  will  repay  careful  study.  For  the  conven- 
ience of  the  reader  I  quote  below  its  main  specifi- 
cations : 2 

Foundation.  A  good,  sure,  and  strong  foundation, 
of  piles,  brick,  lime,  and  sand,  both  without  and 
within,  to  be  wrought  one  foot  of  assize  at  the  least 
above  the  ground. 

Frame.  The  frame  of  the  said  house  to  be  set 
square,  and  to  contain  fourscore  foot  of  lawful  assize 
every  way  square  without,  and  fifty-five  foot  of  like 
assize  square  every  way  within. 

Materials.  And  shall  also  make  all  the  said  frame 
in  every  point  for  scantlings  larger  and  bigger  in 
assize  than  the  scantlings  of  the  said  new-erected 
house  called  the  Globe. 

Exterior.  To  be  sufficiently  enclosed  without  with 
lath,  lime,  and  hair. 

1  Greg,  Henslowe's  Diary,  i,  124. 

8  For  the  full  document  see  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  4. 


THE  FORTUNE  275 

Stairs.  With  such  like  stairs,  conveyances,  and 
divisions,  without  and  within,  as  are  made  and  con- 
trived in  and  to  the  late  erected  playhouse  .  .  .  called 
the  Globe.  .  .  .  And  the  staircases  thereof  to  be  suffi- 
ciently enclosed  without  with  lath,  lime,  and  hair. 

Height  of  galleries.  And  the  said  frame  to  contain 
three  stories  in  height;  the  first,  or  lower  story  to  con- 
tain twelve  foot  of  lawful  assize  in  height;  the  second 
story  eleven  foot  of  lawful  assize  in  height;  and  the 
third,  or  upper  story,  to  contain  nine  foot  of  lawful 
assize  in  height. 

Breadth  of  galleries.  All  which  stories  shall  contain 
twelve  foot  of  lawful  assize  in  breadth  throughout. 
Besides  a  jutty  forward  in  either  of  the  said  two  upper 
stories  of  ten  inches  of  lawful  assize. 

Protection  of  lowest  gallery.  The  lower  story  of  the 
said  frame  withinside  ...  [to  be]  paled  in  below  with 
good,  strong,  and  sufficient  new  oaken  boards.  . . .  And 
the  said  lower  story  to  be  also  laid  over  and  fenced 
with  strong  iron  pikes. 

Divisions  of  galleries.  With  four  convenient  divi- 
sions for  gentlemen's  rooms,  and  other  sufficient  and 
convenient  divisions  for  two-penny  rooms.  .  .  .  And 
the  gentlemen's  rooms  and  two-penny  rooms  to  be 
ceiled  with  lath,  lime,  and  hair. 

Seats.  With  necessary  seats  to  be  placed  and  set, 
as  well  in  those  rooms  as  throughout  all  the  rest  of  the 
galleries. 

Stage.  With  a  stage  and  tiring-house  to  be  made, 
erected,  and  set  up  within  the  said  frame;  with  a 
shadow  or  cover  over  the  said  stage.  Which  stage 
shall  be  placed  and  set  (as  also  the  staircases  of  the 
said  frame)  in  such  sort  as  is  prefigured  in  a  plot 
thereof  drawn.  [The  plot  has  been  lost.]  And  which 
stage  shall  contain  in  length  forty  and  three  foot  of 


276     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

lawful  assize,  and  in  breadth  to  extend  to  the  middle 
of  the  yard  of  the  said  house.  The  same  stage  to  be 
paled  in  below  with  good,  strong,  and  sufficient  new 
oaken  boards.  .  .  .  And  the  said  stage  to  be  in  all 
other  proportions  contrived  and  fashioned  like  unto 
the  stage  of  the  said  playhouse  called  the  Globe.  .  .  . 
And  the  said  .  .  .  stage  ...  to  be  covered  with  tile, 
and  to  have  a  sufficient  gutter  of  lead  to  carry  and 
convey  the  water  from  the  covering  of  the  said  stage 
to  fall  backwards. 

Tiring-house.  With  convenient  windows  and  lights, 
glazed,  to  the  said  tiring-house. 

Flooring.  And  all  the  floors  of  the  said  galleries, 
stories,  and  stage  to  be  boarded  with  good  and  suffi- 
cient new  deal  boards,  of  the  whole  thickness  where 
need  shall  be. 

Columns.  All  the  principal  and  main  posts  of  the 
said  frame  and  stage  forward  shall  be  square,  and 
wrought  pilaster-wise,  with  carved  proportions  called 
satyrs  to  be  placed  and  set  on  the  top  of  every  of  the 
said  posts. 

Roof.  And  the  said  frame,  stage,  and  staircases  to 
be  covered  with  tile. 

Miscellaneous.  To  be  in  all  other  contrivations, 
conveyances,  fashions,  thing  and  things,  effected, 
finished,  and  done,  according  to  the  manner  and 
fashion  of  the  said  house  called  the  Globe. 

It  is  rather  unfortunate  for  us  that  the  building 
was  to  be  in  so  many  respects  a  copy  of  the  Globe, 
for  that  deprives  us  of  further  detailed  specifica- 
tions; and  it  is  unfortunate,  too,  that  the  plan  or 
drawing  showing  the  arrangement  of  the  stage  was 
not  preserved  with  the  rest  of  the  document.  Yet 
we  are  able  to  derive  much  exact  information  from 


THE   FORTUNE  277 

the  contract;  and  with  this  information,  at  least 
two  modern  architects  have  made  reconstructions 
of  the  building.1 

No  representation  of  the  exterior  of  the  Fortune 
has  come  down  to  us.  In  the  so-called  Ryther  Map 
of  London,  there  is,  to  be  sure,  what  seems  to  be  a 
crude  representation  of  the  playhouse  (see  page 
278) ;  but  if  this  is  really  intended  for  the  Fortune, 
it  does  little  more  than  mark  the  location.  Yet  one 
can  readily  picture  in  his  imagination  the  play- 
house —  a  plastered  structure,  eighty  feet  square 
and  approximately  forty  feet  high,2  with  small 
windows  marking  the  galleries,  a  turret  and  flagpole 
surmounting  the  red-tiled  roof,  and  over  the  main 
entrance  a  sign  representing  Dame  Fortune: 

I'le  rather  stand  here, 

Like  a  statue  in  the  fore-front  of  your  house, 
For  ever,  like  the  picture  of  Dame  Fortune 
Before  the  Fortune  Playhouse.3 

1  See  the  Bibliography.  A  model  of  the  Fortune  by  Mr.  W.  H. 
Godfrey  is  preserved  in  the  Dramatic  Museum  of  Columbia 
University  in  New  York  City,  and  a  duplicate  is  in  the  Museum 
of  European  Culture  at  the  University  of  Illinois.  For  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  model  see  the  Architect  and  Builders'  Journal  (Lon- 
don), August  16,  191 1. 

2  The  three  galleries  (twelve,  eleven,  and  nine  feet,  respec- 
tively) were  thirty-two  feet  in  height;  but  to  this  must  be  added 
the  elevation  of  the  first  gallery  above  the  yard,  the  space  occu- 
pied by  the  ceiling  and  flooring  of  the  several  galleries,  and, 
finally,  the  roof. 

3  Thomas  Heywood,  The  English  Traveller  (1633),  ed.  Pearson, 
iv,  84.  We  do  not  know  when  the  play  was  written,  but  the  refer- 
ence is  probably  to  the  New  Fortune,  built  in  1623.  Fleywood 
generally  uses  "picture"  in  the  sense  of  "statue." 


278     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Nor  is  there  any  pictorial  representation  of  the 
interior  of  the  playhouse.  In  the  absence  of  such,  I 
offer  the  reader  a  verbal  picture  of  the  interior  as 


THE  FORTUNE  PLAYHOUSE  (?) 

The  curious  structure  with  the  flag  may  be  intended  to  mark 
the  site  of  the  Fortune.  (From  the  so-called  Ryther  Map  of 
London,  drawn  about  1630-40.) 

seen  from  the  stage  during  the  performance  of  a 
play.  In  Middleton  and  Dekker's  The  Roaring  Girl, 
acted  at  the  Fortune,  Sir  Alexander  shows  to  his 
friends  his  magnificent  house.  Advancing  to  the 
middle  of  the  stage,  and  pointing  out  over  the 
building,  he  asks  them  how  they  like  it: 


THE   FORTUNE  279 

Goshawk.  I  like  the  prospect  best. 

Laxton.  See  how  't  is  furnished! 

Sir  Davy.  A  very  fair  sweet  room. 

Sir  Alex.  Sir  Davy  Dapper, 

The  furniture  that  doth  adorn  this  room 
Cost  many  a  fair  grey  groat  ere  it  came  here; 
But  good  things  are  most  cheap  when  they're  most  dear. 
Nay,  when  you  look  into  my  galleries, 
How  bravely  they're  trimm'd  up,  you  all  shall  swear 
You're  highly  pleas'd  to  see  what's  set  down  there: 
Stories  of  men  and  women,  mix'd  together, 
Fair  ones  with  foul,  like  sunshine  in  wet  weather; 
Within  one  square  a  thousand  heads  are  laid, 
So  close  that  all  of  heads  the  room  seems  made; 
As  many  faces  there,  fill'd  with  blithe  looks 
Shew  like  the  promising  titles  of  new  books 
Writ  merrily,  the  readers  being  their  own  eyes, 
Which  seem  to  move  and  to  give  plaudities; 
And  here  and  there,  whilst  with  obsequious  ears 
Throng'd  heaps  do  listen,  a  cut-purse  thrusts  and  leers 
With  hawk's  eyes  for  his  prey;  I  need  not  shew  him; 
By  a  hanging,  villainous  look  yourselves  may  know  him, 
The  face  is  drawn  so  rarely:  then,  sir,  below, 
The  very  floor,  as  't  were,  waves  to  and  fro, 
And,  like  a  floating  island,  seems  to  move 
Upon  a  sea  bound  in  with  shores  above. 

All.  These  sights  are  excellent!  l 

A  closer  view  of  this  audience  —  "men  and 
women,  mix'd  together,  fair  ones  with  foul"  —  is 
furnished  by  one  of  the  letters  of  Orazio  Busino,2 

1  The  Roaring  Girl,  i,  i.  Pointed  out  by  M.  W.  Sampson,  Mod- 
ern Language  Notes,  June,  1915. 

2  "Diaries  and  Despatches  of  the  Venetian  Embassy  at  the 
Court  of  King  James  I,  in  the  Years  1617,  1618.  Translated  by 
Rawdon  Brown."  (The  Quarterly  Review,  en,  416.)  It  is  true  that 
the  notice  of  this  letter  in  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Venetian, 
xv,  67,  makes  no  mention  of  the  Fortune;  but  the  writer  in  The 


28o     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

the  chaplain  of  the  Venetian  Embassy,  who  visited 
the  Fortune  playhouse  shortly  after  his  arrival  in 
London  in  1617: 

The  other  day,  therefore,  they  determined  on  tak- 
ing me  to  one  of  the  many  theatres  where  plays  are 
performed,  and  we  saw  a  tragedy,  which  diverted  me 
very  little,  especially  as  I  cannot  understand  a  word 
of  English,  though  some  little  amusement  may  be 
derived  from  gazing  at  the  very  costly  dresses  of  the 
actors,  and  from  the  various  interludes  of  instrumen- 
tal music  and  dancing  and  singing;  but  the  best  treat 
was  to  see  such  a  crowd  of  nobility  so  very  well  ar- 
rayed that  they  looked  like  so  many  princes,  listening 
as  silently  and  soberly  as  possible.  These  theatres  are 
frequented  by  a  number  of  respectable  and  handsome 
ladies,  who  come  freely  and  seat  themselves  among 
the  men  without  the  slightest  hesitation.  On  the  eve- 
ning in  question  his  Excellency  [the  Venetian  Ambas- 
sador] and  the  Secretary  were  pleased  to  play  me  a 
trick  by  placing  me  amongst  a  bevy  of  young  women. 
Scarcely  was  I  seated  ere  a  very  elegant  dame,  but  in 
a  mask,  came  and  placed  herself  beside  me.  .  .  .  She 
asked  me  for  my  address,  both  in  French  and  English; 
and  on  my  turning  a  deaf  ear,  she  determined  to  hon- 
our me  by  showing  me  some  fine  diamonds  on  her 
fingers,  repeatedly  taking  off  no  fewer  than  three 
gloves,  which  were  worn  one  over  the  other.  .  .  .  This 
lady's  bodice  was  of  yellow  satin  richly  embroidered, 
her  petticoat  of  gold  tissue  with  stripes,  her  robe  of 
red  velvet  with  a  raised  pile,  lined  with  yellow  muslin, 
with  broad  stripes  of  pure  gold.    She  wore  an  apron 

Quarterly  Review,  who  had  before  him  the  entire  manuscript, 
states  positively  that  the  Fortune  was  the  playhouse  visited.  I 
have  not  been  able  to  examine  the  manuscript  itself,  which  is 
preserved  in  Venice. 


THE   FORTUNE  281 

of  point  lace  of  various  patterns;  her  head-tire  was 
highly  perfumed,  and  the  collar  of  white  satin  be- 
neath the  delicately-wrought  ruff  struck  me  as 
extremely  pretty. 

That  the  players  were  prepared  to  entertain 
distinguished  visitors  both  during  the  performance 
and  after  is  shown  by  a  letter  from  John  Chamber- 
lain, July  21,  1621,  to  Sir  Dudley  Carleton.  "The 
Spanish  Ambassador,"  he  writes,  "is  grown  so 
affable  and  familiar,  that  on  Monday,  with  his 
whole  train,  he  went  to  a  common  play  at  the  For- 
tune in  Golding  Lane;  and  the  players  (not  to  be 
overcome  with  courtesy)  made  him  a  banquet, 
when  the  play  was  done,  in  the  garden  adjoining."  l 

Upon  its  completion  the  new  building  was  occu- 
pied by  the  Admiral's  Men,  for  whom  it  had  been 
erected.  This  troupe  of  players,  long  famous  under 
the  leadership  of  Edward  Alleyn,  was  now  one  of 
the  two  companies  authorized  by  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil, and  the  chief  rival  of  the  Chamberlain's  Men 
at  the  Globe.  Henslowe  was  managing  their  affairs, 
and  numerous  poets  were  writing  plays  for  them. 
They  continued  to  act  at  the  Fortune  under  the 
name,  "The  Admiral's  Men,"  until  May  5,  1603, 
when,  as  Henslowe  put  it,  they  "  left  off  play  now 
at  the  King's  coming."  2 

After  a  short  interruption  on  account  of  the 
plague,  during  a  part  of  which  time  they  traveled 

1  Nichols,  The  Progresses  of  King  James,  iv,  67. 

2  Greg,  Henslowe' s  Diary,  1,  174. 


a82     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

in  the  provinces,  the  Admiral's  Men  were  taken 
under  the  patronage  of  the  youthful  Henry,  Prince 
of  Wales,  and  in  the  early  spring  of  1604  they  re- 
sumed playing  at  the  Fortune  under  their  new- 
name,  "The  Prince's  Servants." 

For  a  time  all  went  weh\  But  from  July,  1607, 
until  December,  1609,  the  plague  was  severe  in 
London,  and  acting  was  seriously  interrupted. 
During  this  long  period  of  hardship  for  the  players, 
Henslowe  and  Alleyn  seem  to  have  made  an  at- 
tempt to  hold  the  troupe  together  by  admitting  its 
chief  members  to  a  partnership  in  the  building, 
just  as  the  Burbages  had  formerly  admitted  their 
chief  players  to  a  partnership  in  the  Globe.  At  this 
time  there  were  in  the  troupe  eight  sharers,  or  chief 
actors.1  Henslowe  and  Alleyn,  it  seems,  proposed 
to  allot  to  these  eight  actors  one-fourth  of  the  For- 
tune property.  In  other  words,  according  to  this 
scheme,  there  were  to  be  thirty-two  sharers  in  the 
new  Fortune  organization,  Alleyn  and  Henslowe 
together  holding  three-fourths  of  the  stock,  or 
twelve  shares  each,  and  the  eight  actors  together 
holding  one-fourth  of  the  stock,  or  one  share  each. 
A  document  was  actually  drawn  up  by  Henslowe 
and  Alleyn,  with  the  name  of  the  leader  of  the 
Fortune  troupe,  Thomas  Downton,  inserted; 2  but 
since  the  document  was  not  executed,  the  scheme, 

1  See  the  Company's  Patent  of  1606,  in  The  Malone  Society's 
Collections,  1,  268. 

2  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  13. 


EDWARD  ALLEYN 

(.Reproduced  by  permission  from  a  painting  in  the  Dulwich 

Picture  Gallery;  photograph  by  Emery  Walker,  Ltd.) 


THE   FORTUNE  283 

it  is  to  be  presumed,  was  unsuccessful  —  at  least, 
we  hear  nothing  further  about  it.1 

On  November  6,  161 2,  the  death  of  the  young 
Prince  of  Wales  left  the  company  without  a  "  ser- 
vice." On  January  4,  1613,  however,  a  new  patent 
was  issued  to  the  players,  placing  them  under  the 
protection  of  the  Palsgrave,  or  Elector  Palatine, 
after  which  date  they  are  known  as  "The  Pals- 
grave's Men." 

On  January  9, 1616,  Henslowe,  so  long  associated 
with  the  company  and  the  Fortune,  died;  and  a 
year  later  his  widow,  Agnes,  followed  him.  As  a 
result  the  entire  Fortune  property  passed  into  the 
hands  of  Alleyn.  But  Alleyn,  apparently,  did  not 
care  to  be  worried  with  the  management  of  the 
playhouse;  so  on  October  31,  1618,  he  leased  it  to 
the  Palsgrave's  Men  for  a  period  of  thirty-one 
years,  at  an  annual  rental  of  £200  and  two  rundlets 
of  wine  at  Christmas.2 

On  April  24,  1620,  Alleyn  executed  a  deed  of 
grant  of  lands  by  which  he  transferred  the  Fortune, 
along  with  various  other  properties,  to  Dulwich 
College.3  But  he  retained  during  his  lifetime  the 
whole  of  the  revenues  therefrom,  and  he  specifically 
reserved  to  himself  the  right  to  grant  leases  for 

1  For  an  ordinance  concerning  "lewd  jiggs"  at  the  Fortune  in 
1612,  see  Middlesex  County  Records,  n,  83. 

2  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  27;  Young,  The  History  of  Dulwich 
College,  11,  260. 

3  The  deed  is  printed  by  Young,  op.  cit.,  1,  50.  The  Fortune 
property,  I  believe,  is  still  a  part  of  the  endowment  of  the  college. 


284     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

any  length  of  years.  The  transference  of  the  title, 
therefore,  in  no  way  affected  the  playhouse,  and 
Allcyn  continued  to  manage  the  property  as  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  do  in  the  past. 

His  services  in  this  capacity  were  soon  needed, 
for  on  December  9,  162 1,  the  Fortune  was  burned 
to  the  ground.  Alleyn  records  the  event  in  his 
Diary  thus:  "Memorandum.  This  night  at  12  of 
the  clock  the  Fortune  was  burnt."  In  a  less  laconic 
fashion  John  Chamberlain  writes  to  Sir  Dudley 
Carleton:  "On  Sunday  night  here  was  a  great  fire 
at  the  Fortune  in  Golding-Lane,  the  fairest  play- 
house in  this  town.  It  was  quite  burnt  down  in 
two  hours,  and  all  their  apparel  and  playbooks 
lost,  whereby  those  poor  companions  are  quite 
undone."  1 

The  "poor  companions  "  thus  referred  to  were,  of 
course,  the  players,  who  lost  not  only  their  stock 
of  apparel,  playbooks,  and  stage  furniture,  but  also 
their  lease,  which  assured  them  of  a  home.  Alleyn, 
however,  was  quite  able  and  ready  to  reconstruct 
the  building  for  them;  and  we  find  him  on  May  20, 
1621,  already  organizing  a  syndicate  to  finance  "a 
new  playhouse"  which  "there  is  intended  to  be 
erected  and  set  up."  The  stock  of  the  new  enter- 
prise he  divided  into  twelve  equal  shares,  which  he 
disposed  of,  as  the  custom  was,  in  the  form  of  whole 

1  Birch,  The  Court  and  Times  of  James  the  First,  11,  280.  Howes, 
in  his  continuation  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1),  p.  1004,  attributes 
the  fire  to  "  negligence  of  a  candle,"  but  gives  no  details. 


THE   FORTUNE  285 

and  half  shares,  reserving  for  himself  only  one 
share.1  The  plot  of  ground  on  which  the  old  play- 
house stood  he  leased  to  the  several  sharers  for  a 
period  of  fifty-one  years  at  an  annual  rental  of  £10 
13J.  lod.  a  share,  with  the  express  condition  that 
the  building  to  be  erected  thereon  should  never  be 
used  for  any  purpose  other  than  the  acting  of  stage- 
plays.  The  sharers  then  proceeded  to  the  task  of 
constructing  their  playhouse.  It  was  proposed  to 
make  the  new  building  larger  2  and  handsomer  than 
the  old  one,  and  to  build  it  of  brick  3  with  a  tiled 
roof  —  possibly  an  attempt  at  fireproof  construc- 
tion. It  was  decided,  also,  to  abandon  the  square 
shape  in  favor  of  the  older  and  more  logical  circular 
shape.  Wright,  in  his  Historia  Histrionica,  describes 
the  New  Fortune  as  "a  large,  round,  brick  build- 
ing," 4  and  Howes  assures  us  that  it  was  "farre 
fairer"  than  the  old  playhouse.5  We  do  not  know 
how  much  the  building  cost.   At  the  outset  each 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  pp.  28-30;  112.  The  names  of  the 
sharers  are  not  inspiring:  Thomas  Sparks,  merchant  tailor;  Wil- 
liam Gwalter,  innholder;  John  Fisher,  barber-surgeon;  Thomas 
Wigpitt,  bricklayer;  etc. 

2  Prynne,  Histriomastix,  Epistle  Dedicatory. 

3  The  writer  of  the  manuscript  notes  in  the  Phillipps  copy  of 
Stow's  Annals  (see  The  Academy,  October  28,  1882,  p.  314),  who 
is  not  trustworthy,  says  that  the  Fortune  was  burned  down  in 
1618,  and  "built  again  with  brick  work  on  the  outside,"  from 
which  Mr.  Wallace  assumed  that  he  meant  that  the  building 
was  merely  brick-veneered.  If  the  writer  meant  this  he  was 
in  error.  See  the  report  of  the  commission  appointed  by  Dul- 
wich  College  to  examine  the  building  (Greg,  Henslowe  Papers, 

P-  95)- 

4  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  xv,  408.  6  Stow,  Annals,  1631. 


286     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

sharer  was  assessed  £83  6s.  Sd.  towards  the  cost  of 
construction,1  which  would  produce  exactly  £1000; 
but  the  first  assessment  was  not  necessarily  all  that 
the  sharers  were  called  upon  to  pay.  For  example, 
when  the  Globe  was  rebuilt  each  sharer  was  at  first 
assessed  "  £50  or  £60,"  but  before  the  building  was 
finished  each  had  paid  more  than  £100.  So  the 
Fortune  may  well  have  cost  more  than  the  original 
estimate  of  £1000.  In  1656  two  expert  assessors 
appointed  by  the  authorities  of  Dulwich  College  to 
examine  the  playhouse  declared  that  "the  said 
building  did  in  our  opinions  cost  building  about 
two  thousand  pound."  2  This  estimate  is  probably 
not  far  wrong.  The  playhouse  was  completed  in 
June  or  July  of  1623,  and  was  again  occupied  by 
the  Palsgrave's  Men.3 

On  November  25,  1626,  Edward  Alleyn  died,  and 
the  Fortune  property  came  into  the  full  possession 
of  Dulwich  College.  This,  however,  did  not  in  any 
way  affect  the  syndicate  of  the  Fortune  house- 
keepers, who  held  from  Alleyn  a  lease  of  the  prop- 
erty until  1672.  According  to  the  terms  of  this 
lease  each  of  the  twelve  sharers  had  to  pay  a  yearly 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  29.  Half-shares  were  £41  13/.  4^., 
which  Murray  {English  Dramatic  Companies)  confuses  with  whole 
shares. 

2  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  95.  This  estimate  was  made  after 
the  interior  of  the  building  had  been  "pulled  down,"  and  hence 
refers  merely  to  the  cost  of  erection. 

1  For  an  account  of  "a  dangerous  and  great  riot  committed  in 
Whitecross  Street  at  the  Fortune  Playhouse"  in  May,  1626,  see 
Jeaffreson,  Middlesex  County  Records,  in,  161-63. 


THE   FORTUNE  287 

rental  of  £10  13 s.  lod. ;  this  rental  now  merely  went 
to  the  College  instead  of  to  Alleyn. 

In  163 1  the  Palsgrave's  Men  seem  to  have  fallen 
on  hard  times ;  at  any  rate,  they  had  to  give  up  the 
Fortune,  and  the  playhouse  was  taken  over,  about 
December,  by  the  King's  Revels,  who  had  been 
playing  at  the  small  private  playhouse  of  Salisbury 
Court.1  The  Palsgrave's  Men  were  reorganized, 
taken  under  the  patronage  of  the  infant  Prince 
Charles,  and  placed  in  the  Salisbury  Court  Play- 
house just  vacated  by  the  King's  Revels. 

In  1635  there  was  a  general  shifting  of  houses  on 
the  part  of  the  London  companies.  The  King's 
Revels  left  the  Fortune  and  returned  to  their  old 
quarters  at  Salisbury  Court;  the  Prince  Charles's 
Men,  who  had  been  at  Salisbury  Court,  moved  to 
the  Red  Bull;  and  the  Red  Bull  Company  trans- 
ferred itself  to  the  Fortune. 

The  stay  of  the  Red  Bull  Company  at  the  For- 
tune was  not  happy.  Towards  the  end  of  1635  the 
plague  was  seriously  interfering  with  their  per- 
formance of  plays; 2  and  on  May  10,  1636,  the 
Privy  Council  closed  all  theatres,  and  kept  them 
closed,  except  for  a  few  days,  until  October  2, 1637.3 
This  long  inhibition  not  only  impoverished  the  ac- 
tors and  drove  them  into  the  country,  but  came 

1  For  details  of  this  move  see  the  chapter  on  the  Salisbury 
Court  Playhouse. 

2  Young,  The  History  of  Dulwich  College,  i,  114. 

3  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  391,  392;  Malone,  Vari- 
orum, in,  239. 


288     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

near  ruining  the  lessees  of  the  Fortune,  who,  having 
no  revenue  from  the  playhouse,  could  not  make 
their  quarterly  payments  to  the  College.  On  Sep- 
tember 4,  1637,  the  Court  of  Assistants  at  Duhvich 
noted  that  the  lessees  were  behind  in  their  rent  to 
the  extent  of  £132  12s.  lid.;  "and,"  the  court  adds, 
"there  will  be  a  quarter's  rent  more  at  Michaelmas 
next  [i.e.,  in  twenty-five  days],  which  is  doubted 
will  be  also  unpaid,  amounting  to  £33  is.  qd."  l 
The  excuse  of  the  lessees  for  their  failure  to  pay 
was  the  "restraint  from  playing."  2 

This  "restraint"  was  removed  on  October  2, 
1637,  and  the  players  resumed  their  performances 
at  the  Fortune.  But  in  the  early  summer  of  1639 
they  fell  victims  to  another  bit  of  ill  luck  even  more 
serious  than  their  long  inhibition.  In  a  letter  of 
Edmond  Rossingham,  dated  May  8,  1639,  we  read: 
"Thursday  last  the  players  of  the  Fortune  were 
fined  £1000  for  setting  up  an  altar,  a  bason,  and 
two  candlesticks,  and  bowing  down  before  it  upon 
the  stage;  and  although  they  allege  it  was  an  old 
play  revived,  and  an  altar  to  the  heathen  gods,  yet  it 
was  apparent  that  this  play  was  revived  on  purpose 
in  contempt  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  Church."  3 

1  Young,  The  History  of  Dulwich  College,  I,  114. 

2  The  College  appealed  to  the  Lord  Keeper,  who  on  January 
26  ordered  the  payment  of  the  sum.  But  two  years  later,  Feb- 
ruary, 1640,  we  find  the  College  again  petitioning  the  Lord 
Keeper  to  order  the  lessees  of  the  Fortune  property  to  pay  an 
arrearage  of  £104  14/.  $d.  See  Collier,  The  Alleyn  Papers, 
pp.  95798. 

3  Printed  in  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  163Q,  p.  140. 


THE   FORTUNE  289 

During  the  Easter  period,  1640,  the  players  re- 
turned to  their  old  quarters  at  the  Red  Bull.  After 
their  unhappy  experiences  at  the  Fortune  they 
were  apparently  glad  to  occupy  again  their  former 
home.  The  event  is  celebrated  in  a  Prologue  en- 
titled Upon  the  Removing  of  the  Late  Fortune  Players 
to  the  Bull,  written  by  John  Tatham,  and  printed 
in  Fancies  Theatre  (1640) : l 

Here,  gentlemen,  our  anchor's  fixt;  and  we 
Disdaining  Fortune's  mutability, 
Expect  your  kind  acceptance. 

The  writer  then  hurls  some  uncomplimentary  re- 
marks at  the  Fortune,  observing  complacently: 
"We  have  ne'er  an  actor  here  has  mouth  enough  to 
tear  language  by  the  ears."  It  is  true  that  during 
these  later  years  the  Fortune  had  fallen  into  ill 
repute  with  persons  of  good  taste.  But  so  had  the 
Red  Bull,  and  the  actors  there  had  no  right  to 
throw  stones.  Apparently  the  large  numbers  that 
could  be  accommodated  in  the  great  public  the- 
atres, and  the  quality  of  the  audience  attracted  by 
the  low  price  of  admission,  made  noise  and  rant 
inevitable.2  As  chief  sinners  in  this  respect  the 
Fortune  and  the  Red  Bull  are  usually  mentioned 
together. 

Upon  the  departure  of  the  Red  Bull  Company, 
the  Prince  Charles's  Men  (originally  the  Admiral's, 

1  The  Prologue  is  printed  in  full  by  Malone,  Variorum,  ill,  79. 

2  Not  even  the  Globe  was  entirely  free  from  this;  see  the  Pro- 
logue to  The  Doubtful  Heir. 


290     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

and  later  the  Palsgrave's  Men),  who  had  been 
occupying  the  Red  Bull,  came  to  the  Fortune.1 
Thus  after  an  absence  of  nearly  nine  years,  the  old 
company  (though  sadly  altered  in  personnel),  for 
which  the  Fortune  had  been  built,  returned  to  its 
home  to  remain  there  until  the  end. 

On  September  2,  1642,  the  Long  Parliament 
passed  an  ordinance  suppressing  all  stage-plays; 
but  for  a  time  the  actors  at  the  Fortune  seem  to 
have  continued  their  performances.  In  the  fifth 
number  of  The  Weekly  Account,  September  27- 
October  4,  1643,  we  find  among  other  entries :  "The 
players' misfortune  at  the  Fortune  in  Golding  Lane, 
their  players'  clothes  being  seized  upon  in  the  time 
of  a  play  by  authority  from  the  Parliament."  2 
This,  doubtless,  led  to  the  closing  of  the  playhouse. 

After  the  Fortune  was  thus  closed,  the  lessees 
were  in  a  predicament.  By  a  specific  clause  in  their 
lease  they  were  prevented  from  using  the  building 
for  any  purpose  other  than  the  acting  of  stage- 
plays,  and  now  Parliament  by  a  specific  ordinance 
had  forbidden  the  acting  of  stage-plays.  Hence  the 
lessees,  some  of  whom  were  poor  persons,  being 
unable  to  make  any  profit  from  the  building,  re- 
fused to  pay  any  rent.  The  College  entered  suit 
against  them,  and  exhausted  all  legal  means  to 
make  them  pay,  but  without  success.3 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  79. 

2  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1643,  p.  564. 

s  For  an  interesting  comment  on  the  situation,  especially  in  the 
year  1649,  see  Notes  and  Queries  (series  x),  I,  85. 


THE  FORTUNE  291 

When  the  ordinance  prohibiting  plays  expired  in 
January,  1648,  the  actors  promptly  reopened  the 
Fortune,  and  we  learn  from  The  Kingdom's  Weekly 
Intelligencer  that  on  January  27  no  fewer  than  one 
hundred  and  twenty  coaches  were  crowded  about 
the  building.  But  on  February  9  Parliament  passed 
a  new  and  even  more  stringent  ordinance  against 
dramatic  performances,  placing  penalties  not  only 
upon  the  players,  but  also  upon  the  spectators. 
This  for  ever  put  an  end  to  acting  at  the  Fortune. 

In  1649  the  arrears  of  the  lessees  having  reached 
the  sum  of  £974  5 s.  8d.,  the  authorities  of  the 
College  took  formal  possession  of  the  playhouse. 

From  certain  manuscript  notes  !  entered  in  the 
Phillipps  copy  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1),  we  learn 
that  "a  company  of  soldiers,  set  on  by  the  sectaries 
of  these  sad  times,  on  Saturday,  the  24  day  of 
March,  1649,"  sacked  the  Salisbury  Court  Play- 
house, the  Phoenix,  and  the  Fortune.  The  note 
states  that  the  Fortune  was  "pulled  down  on  the 
inside  by  the  soldiers";  that  is,  the  stage  and  the 
seats  were  dismantled  2  so  as  to  render  the  building 
unusable  for  dramatic  purposes. 

In  the  following  year,  1650,  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Parish  of  St.  Giles  "represent  that  they  are 
poor,  and  unable  to  build  a  place  of  worship  for 
themselves,  but  think  it  would  be  convenient  if 
that  large  building  commonly  known  by  the  name 

1  Printed  in  The  Academy,  October  28,  1882,  p.  314. 

*  See  The  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  July  26,  1648. 


292     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

of  the  Fortune  Playhouse  might  be  allotted  and 
set  apart  for  that  purpose."  The  request  was  not 
granted.1 

By  July,  1656,  the  condition  of  the  old  playhouse 
was  such  that  the  Masters  and  Wardens  of  the  Col- 
lege appointed  two  experts  to  view  the  building 
and  make  recommendations.  They  reported  "that 
by  reason  the  lead  hath  been  taken  from  the  said 
building,  the  tiling  not  secured,  and  the  foundation 
of  the  said  playhouse  not  kept  in  good  repair,  great 
part  of  the  said  playhouse  is  fallen  to  the  ground, 
the  timber  thereof  much  decayed  and  rotten,  and 
the  brick  walls  so  rent  and  torn  that  the  whole 
structure  is  in  no  condition  capable  of  repair,  but 
in  great  danger  of  falling,  to  the  hazard  of  passen- 
gers' lives";  and  they  add:  "The  charge  for  de- 
molishing the  same  will  be  chargeable  and  danger- 
ous. Upon  these  considerations  our  opinion  is  that 
the  said  materials  may  not  be  more  worth  than 
eighty  pound."  2 

The  authorities  of  Dulwich  took  no  action  on 
this  report.  However,  on  March  5,  1660,  they  or- 
dered that  the  property  be  leased,  making  a  casual 
reference  to  the  playhouse  as  "at  present  so  ruinous 
that  part  thereof  is  already  fallen  down,  and  the 
rest  will  suddenly  follow."  Accordingly,  they  in- 
serted in  the  Mercurius  Politicus  of  February  14- 
21,  1661,  the  following  advertisement:  "The  For- 

1  Warner,  Catalogue,  xxxi;  Greg,  Henslozve's  Diary,  n,  65. 
1  The  entire  report  is  printed  in  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  95. 


THE   FORTUNE  293 

tune  Playhouse,  situate  between  Whitecross  Street 
and  Golding  Lane,  in  the  parish  of  St.  Giles,  Crip- 
plegate,  with  the  ground  thereto  belonging,  is  to 
be  let  to  be  built  upon."  ' 

No  one  seems  to  have  cared  to  lease  the  property; 
so  on  March  16,  following,  the  materials  of  the 
building  were  sold  to  one  William  Beaven  for  the 
sum  of  £75 ; 2  and  in  the  records  of  the  College, 
March  4,  1662,  we  read  that  "the  said  playhouse 
...  is  since  totally  demolished."  3 

1  Discovered  by  Stevens,  and  printed  in  Malone,  Variorum,  m, 
55,  note  5.  Mr.  W.  J.  Lawrence,  Archiv  fur  das  Studium  der  Neu- 
eren  Spracken  und  Literaturen  (191 4),  p.  314,  says  that  the  date 
of  this  advertisement  is  1660.  But  the  same  advertisement  is  re- 
printed by  H.  R.  Plomer  in  Notes  and  Queries  (series  x),  vi,  107, 
from  The  Kingdom's  Intelligencer  of  March  18,  1 661. 

2  Young,  The  History  of  Dulwich  College,  11,  265. 

8  Collier,  The  Alleyn  Papers,  p.  101.  I  am  aware  of  the  fact 
that  there  are  references  to  later  incidents  at  the  Fortune  (for 
example,  the  statement  that  it  was  visited  by  officers  in  Novem- 
ber, 1682,  in  an  attempt  to  suppress  secret  conventicles  that  had 
long  been  held  there),  but  in  view  of  the  unimpeachable  docu- 
mentary evidence  cited  above  (in  1662  the  College  authorities 
again  refer  to  it  as  "the  late  ruinous  and  now  demolished  Fortune 
playhouse"),  we  must  regard  these  later  references  either  as  inac- 
curate, or  as  referring  to  another  building  later  erected  in  the 
same  neighborhood.  The  so-called  picture  of  the  Fortune,  printed 
in  Wilkinson's  Londina  Illustrata,  and  often  reproduced  by  mod- 
ern scholars,  cannot  possibly  be  that  of  the  playhouse  erected  by 
Alleyn.  For  an  interesting  surmise  as  to  the  history  of  this  later 
building  see  W.  J.  Lawrence,  Restoration  Stage  Nurseries,  in 
Archiv  fiLr  das  Studium  der  Neueren  Sprachen  und  Literaturen 
(1914),  p.  301. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  RED   BULL 

THE  builder  of  the  Red  Bull  Playhouse !  was 
"one  Aaron  Holland,  yeoman,"  of  whom  we 
know  little  more  than  that  he  "was  utterly  un- 
learned and  illiterate,  not  being  able  to  read."  2  He 
had  leased  "for  many  years"  from  Anne  Bedding- 
field,  "wife  and  administratrix  of  the  goods  and 
chatties  of  Christopher  Beddingfield,  deceased,"  a 
small  plot  of  land,  known  by  the  name  of  "Trie 
Red  Bull."  This  plot  of  land,  which  contained  one 
house,  was  situated  "at  the  upper  end  of  St.  John's 
Street"  in  the  Parish  of  St.  James,  Clerkenwell,  the 
exact  location  being  marked  by  "Red  Bull  Yard" 
in  Ogilby  and  Morgan's  Map  of  London,  printed 
in  1677.  The  property  was  not  much  more  dis- 
tant from  the  heart  of  the  city  than  the  Fortune 
property,  and  since  it  could  be  easily  reached 
through  St.  John's  Gate,  it  was  quite  as  well  situ- 
ated for  dramatic  purposes  as  was  the  Fortune. 
In  or  before  1605  3  Holland  erected  on  this  plot 

1  This  playhouse  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  famous  Bull 
Tavern  in  Bishopsgate  Street,  for  many  years  used  as  a  theatre. 

2  These  statements  are  based  upon  the  Woodford  v.  Holland 
documents,  first  discovered  by  Collier,  later  by  Greenstreet,  and 
finally  printed  in  full  by  Wallace,  Three  London  Theatres. 

J  Sir  Sidney  Lee  {A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare,  p.  60)  says 
that  the  Red  Bull  was  "  built  about  1600."  He  gives  no  evidence, 


THE   SITE  OF  THE   RED   BULL  PLAVlIOiSE*    :    \:  : 
The  site  is  indicated  by  Red  Bull  Yard.   (From  Ogilby  and  Morgan's  Map  of 
London,  1677.) 


THE  RED  BULL  295 

of  ground  "a  playhouse  for  acting  and  setting  forth 
plays,  comedies,  and  tragedies."  We  may  suspect 
that  he  did  this  at  the  instigation  of  the  Earl  of 
Worcester's  Men,  who  had  just  been  taken  under 
the  patronage  of  the  Queen,  and  had  been  selected 
by  the  Privy  Council  as  one  of  three  companies  to 
be  "allowed."  The  warrant  of  the  Privy  Council, 
April  9,  1604,  orders  the  Lord  Mayor  to  "permit 
and  suffer  the  three  companies  of  players  to  the 
King,  Queen,  and  Prince  publickly  to  exercise  their 
plays  in  their  several  and  usual  houses  for  that 
purpose,  and  no  other,  viz.  the  Globe,  situate  in 
Maiden  Lane  on  the  Bankside  in  the  county  of  Sur- 
rey, the  Fortune  in  Golding  Lane,  and  the  Curtain, 
in  Holywell."  *  Among  these  three  companies,  as 
Dekker  tells  us,  there  was  much  rivalry.2  No  doubt 
the  Queen's  Men,  forced  to  occupy  the  old  Curtain 
Playhouse,  suffered  by  comparison  with  the  King's 
Men  at  the  handsome  Globe,  and  the  Prince's  Men 
at  the  new  and  magnificent  Fortune;  and  this,  I 
suspect,  furnished  the  immediate  cause  for  the  erec- 
tion of  the  Red  Bull.  In  a  draft  of  a  license  to  the 
Queen's  Men,  made  late  in  1603  or  early  in  1604, 
the  fact  is   disclosed  that  the  actors,  of  whom 

and  the  statement  seems  to  be  merely  a  repetition  from  earlier 
and  unauthoritative  writers. 

1  The  original  warrant  is  preserved  at  Dulwich,  and  printed 
by  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  61.  Cf.  also  Dasent,  Acts  of  the 
Privy  Council,  xxxn,  511. 

2  Raven's  Almanack  (1609);  Dekker's  Works  (ed.  Grosart),  iv, 

210. 


196     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Thomas  Greene  was  the  leader,  were  contemplat- 
ing a  new  playhouse.  The  company  was  licensed 
to  use  any  "playhouse  not  used  by  others,  by  the 
said  Thomas  Greene  elected,  or  by  him  hereafter  to 
be  built"  '  Whether  or  no  Greene  and  his  fellows 
had  some  understanding  with  Holland,  we  can- 
not say.  But  in  1605  we  find  Holland  disposing  of 
one  share  in  the  new  playhouse  to  Thomas  Swyn- 
nerton,  a  member  of  Queen  Anne's  Troupe;  and  he 
may  at  the  same  time  have  disposed  of  other  shares 
to  other  members,  for  his  transaction  with  Swyn- 
nerton  comes  to  our  notice  only  through  a  subse- 
quent lawsuit.  The  words  used  in  the  documents 
connected  with  the  suit  clearly  suggest  that  the 
playhouse  was  completed  at  the  time  of  the  pur- 
chase. From  the  fact  that  Holland  granted  "a 
seventh  part  of  the  said  playhouse  and  galleries, 
with  a  gatherer's  place  thereto  belonging  or  apper- 
taining, unto  the  said  Thomas  Swynnerton  for 
diverse  years,"  2  it  appears  that  the  ownership  of 
the  playhouse  had  been  divided  into  seven  shares, 
some  of  which,  according  to  custom,  may  have 
been  subdivided  into  half-shares. 

The  name  of  the  playhouse,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Rose  and  the  Curtain,  was  taken  from  the  name  of 
the  estate  on  which  it  was  erected.  Of  the  building 
we  have  no  pictorial  representation;  the  picture  in 
Kirkman's  The  Wits  (1672),  so  often  reproduced  by 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  I,  265. 
8  Wallace,  Three  London  Theatres,  p.  18. 


THE   RED  BULL  297 

scholars  as  "The  Interior  of  the  Red  Bull,"  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  that  building.  The 
Kirkman  picture  shows  a  small  enclosed  room,  with 
a  narrow  stage  illuminated  by  chandeliers  and  foot- 
lights; the  Red  Bull,  on  the  contrary,  was  a  large, 
open-air  building,  with  its  stage  illuminated  by  the 
sun.  It  is  thus  described  in  Wright's  Historia 
Histrionica  (1699) :  "The  Globe,  Fortune,  and  Bull 
were  large  houses,  and  lay  partly  open  to  the 
weather."  *  Before  its  door  was  displayed  a  sign  on 
which  was  painted  a  red  bull ;  hence  the  playhouse 
is  sometimes  referred  to  simply  as  "at  the  sign  of 
the  Red  Bull." 

The  building,  as  I  have  indicated,  seems  to  have 
been  completed  in  or  before  1605 ;  but  exactly  when 
the  Queen's  Men  moved  thither  from  the  Curtain 
is  not  clear.  The  patent  issued  to  the  company  on 
April  15,  1609,  gives  them  license  to  play  "within 
their  now  usual  houses,  called  the  Red  Bull  in 
Clerkenwell,  and  the  Curtain  in  Holywell."  2  Since 
they  would  hardly  make  use  of  two  big  public  play- 
houses at  the  same  time,  we  might  suspect  that 
they  were  then  arranging  for  the  transfer.  More- 
over, Heath,  in  his  Epigrams,  printed  in  1610  but 
probably  written  a  year  or  two  earlier,  refers  to  the 
three  important  public  playhouses  of  the  day  as  the 
Globe,  the  Fortune,  and  the  Curtain.  Yet,  that  the 

1  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  xv,  408.  If  the  Kirkham  picture  repre- 
sents the  interior  of  any  playhouse,  it  more  likely  represents  the 
Cockpit,  which  was  standing  at  the  time  of  the  Restoration. 

2  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  270. 


298     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Queen's  Men  were  playing  regularly  at  the  Red 
Bull  in  1609  is  clear  from  Dekker's  Raven's  Alma- 
nack,1 and  they  may  have  been  playing  there  at 
intervals  after  1605. 

Dekker,  in  the  pamphlet  just  mentioned,  pre- 
dicted "a  deadly  war"  between  the  Globe,  the 
Fortune,  and  the  Red  Bull.  And  he  had  good  rea- 
sons for  believing  that  the  Queen's  Men  could 
successfully  compete  with  the  two  other  com- 
panies, for  it  numbered  among  its  players  some  of 
the  best  actors  of  the  day.  The  leader  of  the 
troupe  was  Thomas  Greene,  now  chiefly  known  for 
the  amusing  comedy  named,  after  him,  Greene's  Tu 
Quoqtie,  but  then  known  to  all  Londoners  as  the 
cleverest  comedian  since  Tarleton  and  Kempe : 

Scat.  Yes,  faith,  brother,  if  it  please  you;  let's  go  see 
a  play  at  the  Globe. 

But.  I  care  not;  any  whither,  so  the  clown  have  a  part; 
for,  i'  faith,  I  am  nobody  without  a  fool. 

Gera.  Why,  then,  we'll  go  to  the  Red  Bull;  they  say 
Green's  a  good  clown.2 

The  chief  playwright  for  the  troupe  was  the  learned 
and  industrious  Thomas  Heywood,  who,  like 
Shakespeare,  was  also  an  actor  and  full  sharer  in  his 

1  Dekker's  Works  (ed.  Grosart),  iv,  210-11.  I  cannot  under- 
stand why  Murray  {English  Dramatic  Companies,  I,  152-53)  and 
others  say  that  Dekker  refers  to  the  Fortune,  the  Globe,  and  the 
Curtain.  His  puns  are  clear:  "  Fortune  must  favour  some  .  .  .  the 
whole  world  must  stick  to  others  .  .  .  and  a  third  faction  must 
fight  like  Bulls." 

2  Greene's  Tu  Quoque,  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  XI,  240.  In  May, 
1610,  there  was  "a  notable  outrage  at  the  Playhouse  called  the 
Red  Bull";  see  Middlesex  County  Records,  it,  64-65. 


THE   RED   BULL  299 

company.  Charles  Lamb,  who  was  an  ardent  ad- 
mirer of  Heywood's  plays,  enthusiastically  styled 
him  "a  prose  Shakespeare ";  and  Wordsworth,  with 
hardly  less  enthusiasm,  declared  him  to  have  been 
"a  great  man." 

In  161 2  Thomas  Greene  died,  and  the  leadership 
of  the  troupe  was  taken  over  by  Christopher  Bees- 
ton,  a  man  well  known  in  the  theatrical  life  of  the 
time.  Late  in  February,  161 7,  Beeston  transferred 
the  Queen's  Men  to  his  new  playhouse  in  Drury 
Lane,  the  Cockpit;  in  little  more  than  a  week  the 
sacking  of  the  Cockpit  drove  them  back  to  their 
old  quarters,  where  they  remained  until  the  fol- 
lowing June.  But  even  after  this  they  seem  not  to 
have  abandoned  the  Red  Bull  entirely. 

Edward  Alleyn,  in  his  Account  Book,  writes: 
"Oct.  1,  161 7,  I  came  to  London  in  the  coach  and 
went  to  the  Red  Bull " ;  and  again  under  the  date  of 
October  3 :  "  I  went  to  the  Red  Bull,  and  received 
for  The  Younger  Brother  but  £3  6s.  \d"  l  What  these 
two  passages  mean  it  is  hard  to  say,  for  they  con- 
stitute the  only  references  to  the  Red  Bull  in  all  the 
Alleyn  papers;  but  they  do  not  necessarily  imply, 
as  some  have  thought,  that  Alleyn  was  part  owner  of 
the  playhouse;  possibly  he  was  merely  selling  to  the 
Red  Bull  Company  the  manuscript  of  an  old  play.2 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  223 ;  Young,  The  History  of  Dulwick 
College,  11,  51;  Warner,  Catalogue,  p.  165;  Collier,  Memoirs  of 
Edward  Alleyn,  p.  107. 

2  The  play  is  not  otherwise  known;  a  play  with  this  title,  how- 
ever, was  entered  on  the  Stationers'  Register  in  1653. 


3oo     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

At  the  death  of  Queen  Anne,  March  2,  1619,  the 
company  was  deprived  of  its  "service,"  and  after 
attending  her  funeral  on  May  13,  was  dissolved. 
Christopher  Beeston  joined  Prince  Charles's  Men, 
and  established  that  troupe  at  the  Cockpit;  *  the 
other  leading  members  of  Queen  Anne's  Men  seem 
to  have  continued  at  the  Red  Bull  under  the  simple 
title  "The  Red  Bull  Company." 

In  April,  1622,  a  feltmaker's  apprentice  named 
John  Gill,2  while  seated  on  the  Red  Bull  stage,  was 
accidentally  injured  by  a  sword  in  the  hands  of  one 
of  the  actors,  Richard  Baxter.  A  few  days  later  Gill 
called  upon  his  fellow-apprentices  to  help  him  secure 
damages.  In  the  forenoon  he  sent  the  following 
letter,  now  somewhat  defaced  by  time,  to  Baxter: 

Mr.  Blackster  [sic].  So  it  is  that  upon  Monday  last 
it  ...  to  be  upon  your  stage,  intending  no  hurt  to 
any  one,  where  I  was  grievously  wounded  in  the  head, 
as  may  appear;  and  in  the  surgeon's  hands,  who  is  to 
have  xs.  for  the  cure;  and  in  the  meantime  my  Master 
to  give  me  maintenance  ...  [to  my]  great  loss  and 
hindrance;  and  therefore  in  kindness  I  desire  you  to 
give  me  satisfaction,  seeing  I  was  wounded  by  your 
own  hand  .  .  .  weapon.  If  you  refuse,  then  look  to 
yourself  and  avoid  the  danger  which  shall  this  day 
ensue  upon  your  company  and  house.  For  .  .  .  as  you 
can,  for  I  am  a  feltmaker's  prentice,  and  have  made 
it  known  to  at  least  one  hundred  and  forty  of  our  .  .  . 
who  are  all  here  present,  ready  to  take  revenge  upon 

1  For  details  of  this  change,  and  of  the  quarrels  that  followed, 
see  the  chapter  on  the  Cockpit. 

1  The  name  is  also  given,  incorrectly,  as  Richard  Gill. 


THE   RED   BULL  301 

you  unless  willingly  you  will  give  present  satisfaction. 
Consider  there  .  .  .  think  fitting.  And  as  you  have  a 
care  for  your  own  safeties,  so  let  me  have  answer 
forthwith.1 

Baxter  turned  the  letter  over  to  the  authorities  of 
Middlesex  (hence  its  preservation),  who  took  steps 
to  guard  the  playhouse  and  actors.  The  only  result 
was  that  prentices  "to  the  number  of  one  hundred 
persons  on  the  said  day  riotously  assembled  at 
Clerkenwell,  to  the  terror  and  disquiet  of  persons 
dwelling  there." 

On  July  8,  1622,  the  Red  Bull  Company  secured 
a  license  "to  bring  up  children  in  the  quality  and 
exercise  of  playing  comedies,  histories,  interludes, 
morals,  pastorals,  stage-plays  and  such  like  ...  to 
be  called  by  the  name  of  the  Children  of  the  Rev- 
els." 2  The  Children  of  the  Revels  occupied  the 
Red  Bull  until  the  summer  of  the  following  year, 
1623,  when  they  were  dissolved.  The  last  reference 
to  them  is  in  the  Herbert  Manuscript  under  the 
date  of  May  10,  1623. 3 

In  August,  1623,  we  find  the  Red  Bull  occupied 
by  Prince  Charles's  Men,4  who,  after  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Revels  Company,  had  moved  thither 
from  the  less  desirable  Curtain. 

Two  years  later,  in  1625,  Prince  Charles  became 
King,  and  took  under  his  patronage  his  father's 

1  Jeaffreson,  Middlesex  County  Records,  n,  165-66;  175-76. 

2  Malone,  Variorum,  m,  62;  The  Malone  Society's  Collections, 
I,  284. 

1  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology,  p.  213.      4  Ibid.,  pp.  213-14. 


302     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

troupe,  the  King's  Men.  Some  of  the  members  of 
the  Prince  Charles  Troupe  were  transferred  to  the 
King's  Men,  and  the  rest  constituted  a  nucleus 
about  which  a  new  company  was  organized,  known 
simply  as  "The  Red  Bull  Company." 

About  this  time,  it  seems,  the  playhouse  was  re- 
built and  enlarged.  The  Fortune  had  been  de- 
stroyed by  fire  in  1621,  and  had  just  been  rebuilt  in 
a  larger  and  handsomer  form.  In  1625  one  W.  C, 
in  London's  Lamentation  for  her  Sins,  writes:  "Yet 
even  then,  Oh  Lord,  were  the  theatres  magnified 
and  enlarged."  l  This  doubtless  refers  to  the  re- 
building of  the  Fortune  and  the  Red  Bull.  Prynne 
specifically  states  in  his  Histriomastix  (1633)  that  the 
Fortune  and  Red  Bull  had  been  "lately  reedified 
[and]  enlarged."  But  nothing  further  is  known  of  the 
"re-edification  and  enlargement"  of  the  Red  Bull. 

After  its  enlargement  the  playhouse  seems  to 
have  acquired  a  reputation  for  noise  and  vulgarity. 
Carew,  in  1630,  speaks  of  it  as  a  place  where  "noise 
prevails"  and  a  "drowth  of  wit,"  and  yet  as  al- 
ways crowded  with  people  while  the  better  play- 
houses stood  empty.  In  The  Careless  Shepherdess, 
acted  at  Salisbury  Court,  we  read: 

And  I  will  hasten  to  the  money-box, 

And  take  my  shilling  out  again; 

I  '11  go  to  the  Bull,  or  Fortune,  and  there  see 

A  play  for  two-pence,  and  a  jig  to  boot.2 

1  Quoted  by  Collier,  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry 
(1879),  ill,  121. 

2  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  70. 


THE   RED  BULL  303 

In  1638,  a  writer  of  verses  prefixed  to  Randolph's 
Poems  speaks  of  the  "base  plots"  acted  with  great 
applause  at  the  Red  Bull.1  James  Wright  informs 
us,  in  his  Historia  Histrionica,  that  the  Red  Bull 
and  the  Fortune  were  "mostly  frequented  by  citi- 
zens and  the  meaner  sort  of  people."  2  And  Ed- 
mund Gayton,  in  his  Pleasant  Notes,  wittily  re- 
marks :  "  I  have  heard  that  the  poets  of  the  Fortune 
and  Red  Bull  had  always  a  mouth-measure  for 
their  actors  (who  were  terrible  tear-throats)  and 
made  their  lines  proportionable  to  their  compass, 
which  were  sesquipedales,  a  foot  and  a  half."  3 
Probably  the  ill  repute  of  the  large  public  play- 
houses at  this  time  was  chiefly  due  to  the  rise  of 
private  playhouses  in  the  city. 

In  1635  the  Red  Bull  Company  moved  to  the 
Fortune,  and  Prince  Charles's  Men  occupied  the 
Red  Bull. 

Five  years  later,  at  Easter,  1640,  Prince  Charles's 
Men  moved  back  to  the  Fortune,  and  the  Red  Bull 
Company  returned  to  its  old  home.  In  a  prologue 
written  to  celebrate  the  event,4  the  members  of 
the  company  declared : 

Here,  gentlemen,  our  anchor's  fix't. 
This  proved  true,  for  the  company  remained  at  the 

1  Randolph's  Works  (ed.  Hazlitt),  p.  504. 

2  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  xv,  407. 

3  Pleasant  Notes  on  Don  Quixote,  p.  24. 

4  J.  Tatham,  Fancies  Theatre.  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the 
shifting  of  companies  in  1635  and  1640  see  the  chapter  on  "The 
Fortune." 


304     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Red  Bull  until  Parliament  passed  the  ordinance  of 
1642  closing  the  playhouses  and  forbidding  all  dra- 
matic performances.  The  ordinance,  which  was  to 
hold  good  during  the  continuance  of  the  civil  war, 
was  renewed  in  1647,  with  January  1,  1648,  set  as 
the  date  of  its  expiration.  Through  some  oversight 
a  new  ordinance  was  not  immediately  passed,  and 
the  actors  were  prompt  to  take  advantage  of  the 
fact.  They  threw  open  the  playhouses,  and  the 
Londoners  nocked  in  great  crowds  to  hear  plays 
again.  At  the  Red  Bull,  so  we  learn  from  the  news- 
paper called  Perfect  Occurrences,  was  given  a  per- 
formance of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  Wit  Without 
Money. 

But  on  February  9,  1648,  Parliament  made  up 
for  its  oversight  by  passing  an  exceptionally  severe 
ordinance  against  dramatic  exhibitions,  directing 
that  actors  be  publicly  flogged,  and  that  each  spec- 
tator be  fined  the  sum  of  five  shillings. 

During  the  dark  years  that  followed,  the  Red 
Bull,  in  spite  of  this  ordinance,  was  occasionally 
used  by  venturous  actors.  James  Wright,  in  his 
Historia  Histrionica,  tells  us  that  upon  the  out- 
break of  the  war  the  various  London  actors  had 
gone  "into  the  King's  army,  and,  like  good  men 
and  true,  served  their  old  master,  though  in  a  dif- 
ferent, yet  more  honourable  capacity.  Robinson 
was  killed  at  the  taking  of  a  place  (I  think  Basing 
House)  by  Harrison  .  .  .  Mohun  was  a  captain  .  .  . 
Hart  was  cornet  of  the  same  troop,  and  Shatterel 


THE   RED  BULL  305 

quartermaster.  Allen,  of  the  Cockpit,  was  a  major. 
.  .  .  The  rest  either  lost  or  exposed  their  lives  for 
their  king."  *  He  concludes  the  narrative  by  saying 
that  when  the  wars  were  over,  those  actors  who 
were  left  alive  gathered  to  London,  "and  for  a 
subsistence  endeavoured  to  revive  their  old  trade 
privately."  They  organized  themselves  into  a 
company  in  1648  and  attempted  "to  act  some  plays 
with  as  much  caution  and  privacy  as  could  be  at 
the  Cockpit";  but  after  three  or  four  days  they 
were  stopped  by  soldiers.  Thereafter,  on  special 
occasions  "they  used  to  bribe  the  officer  who  com- 
manded the  guard  at  Whitehall,  and  were  there- 
upon connived  at  to  act  for  a  few  days  at  the  Red 
Bull,  but  were  sometimes,  notwithstanding,  dis- 
turbed by  soldiers."  2  To  such  clandestine  per- 
formances Kirkman  refers  in  his  Preface  to  The 
Wits,  or  Sport  upon  Sport  (1672) :  "I  have  seen  the 
Red  Bull  Playhouse,  which  was  a  large  one,  so  full 
that  as  many  went  back  for  want  of  room  as  had 
entered;  and  as  meanly  as  you  may  now  think  of 
these  drolls,  they  were  then  acted  by  the  best  com- 
edians then  and  now  in  being."  Not,  however, 
without  occasional  trouble.  In  Whitelocke's  Me- 
morials, p.  435,  we  read:  "20  Dec,  1649.  Some 
stage-players  in  St.  John's  Street  were  apprehended 
by  troopers,  their  clothes  taken  away,  and  them- 
selves carried  to  prison";  again,  in  The  Perfect  Ac- 
count, December  27-January  3,  1654-1655:  "Dec. 

1  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  xv,  409.  2  lb\d.,  409-10. 


3o6     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

30,  1654.  — This  day  the  players  at  the  Red  Bull, 
being  gotten  into  all  their  borrowed  gallantry  and 
ready  to  act,  were  by  some  of  the  soldiery  despoiled 
of  all  their  bravery;  but  the  soldiery  carried  them- 
selves very  civilly  towards  the  audience."  *  In  the 
Weekly  Intelligencer -,  September  11-18,  1655,  we 
find  recorded  still  another  sad  experience  for  the 
actors:  "Friday,  September  II,  1655.  —  This  day 
proved  tragicall  to  the  players  at  the  Red  Bull; 
their  acting  being  against  the  Act  of  Parliament, 
the  soldiers  secured  the  persons  of  some  of  them 
who  were  upon  the  stage,  and  in  the  tiring-house 
they  seized  also  upon  their  clothes  in  which  they 
acted,  a  great  part  whereof  was  very  rich."  2 

On  this  occasion,  however,  the  soldiers,  instead 
of  carrying  themselves  "very  civilly"  towards  the 
audience,  undertook  to  exact  from  each  of  the  spec- 
tators the  fine  of  five  shillings.  The  ordinance  of 
Parliament,  passed  February  9,  1648,  read:  "And 
it  is  hereby  further  ordered  and  ordained,  that 
every  person  or  persons  which  shall  be  present  and 
a  spectator  at  such  stage-play  or  interlude,  hereby 
prohibited,  shall  for  every  time  he  shall  be  present, 
forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  five  shillings  to  the  use 
of  the  poor  of  the  parish."  3  But  the  spectators  did 
not  submit  to  this  fine  without  a  struggle.  Jere- 
miah Banks  wrote  to  Williamson  on  September  16, 

1  Cited  by  C.  H.  Firth,  in  Notes  and  Queries,  August  18,  1888, 
series  vn,  vol.  vi,  p.  122. 
*  Ibid. 
8  Hazlitt,  The  English  Drama  and  Stage,  p.  69. 


THE   RED   BULL  307 

1655 :  "At  the  playhouse  this  week  many  were  put 
to  rout  by  the  soldiers  and  had  broken  crowns ;  the 
corporal  would  have  been  entrapped  had  he  not 
been  vigilant."  l  And  in  the  Weekly  Intelligencer, 
September  11-18,  we  read:  "It  never  fared  worse 
with  the  spectators  than  at  this  present,  for  those 
who  had  monies  paid  their  five  shillings  apiece; 
those  who  had  none,  to  satisfy  their  forfeits,  did 
leave  their  cloaks  behind  them.  The  Tragedy  of 
the  spectators  was  the  Comedy  of  the  soldiers. 
There  was  abundance  of  the  female  sex,  who,  not 
able  to  pay  five  shillings,  did  leave  some  gage  or 
other  behind  them,  insomuch  that  although  the 
next  day  after  the  Fair  was  expected  to  be  a  new 
fair  of  hoods,  of  aprons,  and  of  scarfs;  all  which, 
their  poverty  being  made  known,  and  after  some 
check  for  their  trespass,  were  civilly  again  restored 
to  the  owners."  2 

At  the  period  of  the  Restoration  the  Red  Bull 
was  among  the  first  playhouses  to  reopen.  John 
Downes,  in  his  Roscius  Anglicanus,  writes:  "The 
scattered  remnant  of  several  of  these  houses,  upon 
King  Charles'  Restoration,  framed  a  company,  whc 
acted  again  at  the  Bull." 3  Apparently  the  company 

1  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1655,  p.  336. 

2  For  a  further  account  of  this  episode  see  Mercurius  Fumigc^ 
sus,  No.  69. 

3  Cf.  Wright,  Histrio  Histrionica,  p.  412;  and  for  the  general 
history  of  the  actors  at  the  Red  Bull  during  this  period  see  the 
Herbert  records  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  A  Collection  of  Ancient 
Documents. 


3o8     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

was  brought  together  by  the  famous  old  Eliza- 
bethan actor,  Anthony  Turner.  From  the  Mid- 
dlesex  County  Records  (in,  279)  we  learn  that  at 
first  the  players  were  interrupted  by  the  authori- 
ties: 

12  May,  1659.  —  Recognizances,  taken  before  Ra: 
Hall,  esq.  J.  P.,  of  William  Wintershall  and  Henry 
Eaton,  both  of  Clerkenwell,  gentlemen,  in  the  sum  of 
fifty  pounds  each;  "Upon  condition  that  Antony 
Turner  shall  personally  appear  at  the  next  Quarter 
Sessions  of  the  Peace  to  be  holden  at  Hicks  Hall  for 
the  said  County  of  Middlesex;  for  the  unlawful  main- 
taining of  stage-plays  and  interludes  at  the  Red  Bull 
in  St.  John's  Street,  which  house  he  affirms  that  they 
hire  of  the  parishioners  of  Clerkenwell  at  the  rate  of 
twenty  shillings  a  day  over  and  above  what  they 
have  agreed  to  pay  towards  the  relief  of  their  poor 
and  repairing  their  highways,  and  in  the  meantime 
to  be  of  good  behaviour  and  not  to  depart  the  Court 
without  license.  —  Ra:  Hall."  Also  similar  Recog- 
nizances, taken  on  the  same  day,  before  the  same  J. 
P.,  of  the  same  William  Wintershall  and  Henry 
Eaton,  gentlemen,  in  the  same  sum  of  fifty  pounds 
each;  for  the  appearance  of  Edward  Shatterall  at  the 
next.  Q.  S.  P.  for  Middlesex  at  Hicks  Hall,  "to 
answer  for  the  unlawful  maintaining  of  stage-plays 
and  interludes  at  the  Red  Bull  in  St.  John's  Street 
&c."   S.  P.  R.,  17,  May,  1659. 

Later,  it  seems,  they  secured  a  license  from  the 
authorities,  and  thenceforth  acted  without  inter- 
ruption. Samuel  Pepys  made  plans  "to  go  to  the 
Red  Bull  Playhouse"  with  Mrs.  Pierce  and  her 
husband  on  August  3,  1660,  but  was  prevented  by 


THE   RED   BULL  309 

business.   An  account  of  his  visit  there  on  March 
23,  1661,  is  thus  given  in  his  Diary: 

All  the  morning  at  home  putting  papers  in  order; 
dined  at  home,  and  then  out  to  the  Red  Bull  (where  I 
had  not  been  since  plays  came  up  again),  but  coming 
too  soon  I  went  out  again  and  walked  up  and  down 
the  Charterhouse  Yard  and  Aldersgate  Street.  At 
last  came  back  again  and  went  in,  where  I  was  led  by 
a  seaman  that  knew  me,  but  is  here  as  a  servant,  up 
to  the  tiring-room,  where  strange  the  confusion  and 
disorder  that  there  is  among  them  in  fitting  them- 
selves, especially  here,  where  the  clothes  are  very 
poor  and  the  actors  but  common  fellows.  At  la6t  into 
the  pit,  where  I  think  there  was  not  above  ten  more 
than  myself,  and  not  one  hundred  in  the  whole  house. 
And  the  play,  which  is  called  All  fs  Lost  by  Lust, 
poorly  done;  and  with  so  much  disorder,  among 
others,  that  in  the  musique-room,  the  boy  that  was 
to  sing  a  song  not  singing  it  right,  his  master  fell 
about  his  ears  and  beat  him  so,  that  it  put  the  whole 
house  in  an  uproar. 

The  actors,  however,  did  not  remain  long  at  the 
Red  Bull.  They  built  for  themselves  a  new  theatre 
in  Drury  Lane,  whither  they  moved  on  April  8, 
1663 ;  1  and  after  this  the  old  playhouse  was  de- 
serted. In  Davenant's  The  Play-House  to  Be  Let 
(1663),  1,  i,  wre  read: 

Tell  'em  the  Red  Bull  stands  empty  for  fencers:8 
There  are  no  tenants  in  it  but  old  spiders. 

1  After  November  8,  1660,  they  acted  also  in  Gibbon's  Tennis 
Court  in  Clare  Market,  which  they  had  fitted  up  as  a  theatre;  see 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  A  Collection  of  Ancient  Documents,  p.  34. 

2  See  Pepys'  Diary,  April  25,  1 664. 


CHAPTER  XV 
WHITEFRIARS 

THE  district  of  Whitefriars,  lying  just  outside 
the  city  wall  to  the  west,  and  extending  from 
Fleet  Street  to  the  Thames,  was  once  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  order  of  White  Friars,  and  the  site  of  an 
important  monastery;  but  in  Elizabeth's  time  the 
church  had  disappeared,  most  of  the  ancient  build- 
ings had  been  dismantled,  and  in  their  place,  as 
Stow  tells  us,  were  "many  fair  houses  builded, 
lodgings  for  noblemen  and  others."  Since  at  the 
dissolution  of  the  monasteries  the  property  had 
come  into  the  possession  of  the  Crown,  it  was  not 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  London  Common 
Council  —  a  fact  which  made  Whitefriars,  like  Black- 
friars,  a  desirable  refuge  for  players  seeking  to 
escape  the  hostility  of  the  city  authorities.1  One 
might  naturally  expect  the  appearance  of  playing 
here  at  an  early  date,  but  the  evidence  is  slight.2 

1  Whitefriars  passed  under  city  control  in  1608  by  grant  of 
King  James  I,  but  certain  rights  remained,  notably  that  of  sanc- 
tuary. This  has  been  celebrated  in  Shadwell's  play,  The  Squire  of 
Alsatia,  and  in  Scott's  romance,  The  Fortunes  of  Nigel. 

2  Prynne,  in  Histriomastix  (1633),  p.  491,  quotes  a  passage 
from  Richard  Reulidge's  Monster  Lately  Found  Out  and  Discov- 
ered (1628),  in  which  there  is  a  reference  to  a  playhouse  as  existing 
in  Whitefriars  "not  long  after"  1580.  By  "playhouse"  Rculidge 
possibly  meant  an  inn  used  for  acting;  but  the  whole  passage, 
written  by  a  Puritan  after  the  lapse  of  nearly  half  a  century,  is 


WHITEFRIARS  311 

The  first  appearance  of  a  regular  playhouse  in 
Whitefriars  dates  from  the  early  years  of  King 
James's  reign.  With  our  present  knowledge  we 
cannot  fix  the  date  exactly,  yet  we  can  feel  rea- 
sonably certain  that  it  was  not  long  before  1607 
—  probably  about  1605. 

The  chief  spirit  in  the  organization  of  the  new 
playhouse  seems  to  have  been  the  poet  Michael 
Drayton,  who  had  secured  a  patent  from  King 
James  to  " erect"  a  company  of  child  actors,  to  be 
known  as  "The  Children  of  His  Majesty's  Rev- 
els." *  Obviously  his  hope  was  to  make  the  Chil- 
dren of  His  Majesty's  Revels  at  Whitefriars  rival 
the  successful  Children  of  Her  Majesty's  Revels  at 
Blackfriars.  In  this  ambitious  enterprise  he  asso- 
ciated with  himself  a  wealthy  London  merchant, 
Thomas  Woodford,  whom  we  know  as  having 
been  interested  in  various  theatrical  investments.2 
These  two  men  leased  from  Lord  Buckhurst  for  a 

open  to  grave  suspicion,  especially  in  its  details.  Again  Richard 
Flecknoe,  in  A  Short  Discourse  of  the  English  Stage  (1664),  states 
that  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal  acted  in  Whitefriars.  But 
that  he  confused  the  word  "Whitefriars"  with  "Blackfriars"  is 
shown  by  the  rest  of  his  statement. 

1  Fleay,  Murray,  and  others  are  wrong  in  assuming  that  this 
troupe  was  merely  a  continuation  of  the  Paul's  Boys.  So  far  as  I 
can  discover,  there  is  no  official  record  of  the  patent  issued  to 
Drayton;  but  that  such  a  patent  was  issued  is  clear  from  the  law- 
suits of  1609,  printed  by  Greenstreet  in  The  New  Shakspere  Soci- 
ety's Transactions  (1887-90),  p.  269. 

2  He  was  part  proprietor  of  the  Red  Bull.  In  the  case  of  Witter 
v.  Heminges  and  Condell  he  was  examined  as  a  witness  (see  Wal- 
lace, Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  74),  but  what 
connection,  if  any,  he  had  with  the  Globe  does  not  appear. 


3i2     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

short  period  of  time  a  building  described  as  a 
"mansion  house"  formerly  a  part  of  the  White- 
friars  monastery:  "the  rooms  of  which  are  thirteen 
in  number,  three  below,  and  ten  above;  that  is  to 
say,  the  great  hall,  the  kitchen  by  the  yard,  and  a 
cellar,  with  all  the  rooms  from  the  Master  of  the 
Revells'  office  as  the  same  are  now  severed  and  di- 
vided." '  The  "great  hall"  here  mentioned,  once 
the  refectory  of  the  monks,  was  made  into  the 
playhouse.  Its  "great"  size  may  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  there  were  ten  rooms  "above";  and 
its  general  excellence  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  leased  at  £50  per  annum,  whereas 
Blackfriars,  in  a  more  desirable  location  and  fully 
equipped  as  a  theatre,  was  rented  for  only  £40. 

From  an  early  seventeenth-century  survey  of  the 
Whitefriars  property  (see  the  opposite  page),  we 
are  able  to  place  the  building  very  exactly.  The 
part  of  the  monastery  used  as  a  playhouse  —  the 
Frater — was  the  southern  cloister,  marked  in  the 
plan,  "My  Lords  Cloyster."  The  "kitchen  by  the 
yard"  mentioned  in  the  document  just  quoted  is 
clearly  represented  in  the  survey  by  the  "  Scullere." 
The  size  of  the  playhouse  is  hard  to  ascertain,  but 
it  was  approximately  thirty-five  feet  in  width  and 
eighty-five  feet  in  length.2    In  the  London  of  to- 

1  Greenstreet,  The  New  Shakspere  Society's  Transactions 
(1887-90),  p.  275. 

2  The  stipple  walls,  in  the  original  survey  colored  gray,  were 
of  stone;  the  thinner  walls  of  the  adjoining  "tenements,"  in  the 
original  colored  red,  were  of  brick. 


SS3^^sg?£> 


*83 


r 


HbSer^c 


A   PLAN   OF   WHITEFRIARS  •     . 

A  portion  of  an  early  seventeenth-century  survey  of  the  WhitefriJn  Iproperfy 
The  playhouse  adjoined  the  "  Scullere  "  on  the  south.  (This  survey  was  discovered 
in  the  Print  Room  of  the  British  Museum  by  Mr.  A.  W.  Clapham,  and  reproduced 
in  The  Journal  of  the  British  Archaeological  Association,  1910.) 


WHITEFRIARS  313 

day  it  extended  roughly  from  Bouverie  Street  to 
Ashen-tree  Court,  and  lay  just  north  of  George 
Yard. 

Of  the  career  of  the  Children  under  the  joint 
management  of  Drayton  and  Woodford  we  know- 
almost  nothing.  But  in  March,  1608,  a  new  man- 
agement assumed  charge  of  the  troupe,  and  from 
this  point  on  the  history  of  the  playhouse  is  rea- 
sonably clear. 

The  original  lease  of  the  building,  it  seems,  ex- 
pired on  March  5,  1608.  But  before  the  expiration 
—  in  the  latter  part  of  1607  or  in  the  early  part 
of  1608  —  Drayton  and  Woodford  secured  a  new 
lease  on  the  property  for  six  years,  eight  months, 
and  twenty  days,  or  until  December  25  (one  of  the 
four  regular  feasts  of  the  year),  1614.  In  February, 
1608,  after  having  secured  this  renewal  of  the  lease, 
Thomas  Woodford  suddenly  determined  to  retire 
from  the  enterprise;  and  he  sold  his  moiety  to  one 
David  Lording  Barry,1  author  of  the  play  Ram 
Alley.  Barry  and  Drayton  at  once  made  plans  to 
divide  the  property  into  six  shares,  so  as  to  dis- 
tribute the  expenses  and  the  risks  as  well  as  the 
hoped-for  profits.  Barry  induced  his  friend,  George 

1  By  a  stupid  error  often  called  Lodowick  Barry.  For  an  expla- 
nation of  the  error  see  an  article  by  the  present  writer  in  Modern 
Philology,  April,  191 2,  ix,  567.  Mr.  W.  J.  Lawrence  has  recently 
shown  (Studies  in  Philology,  University  of  North  Carolina,  April, 
191 7)  that  David  Barry  was  the  eldest  son  of  the  ninth  Viscount 
Buttevant,  and  was  called  "  Lording"  by  courtesy.  At  the  time 
he  became  interested  in  theWhitefriars  Playhouse  he  was  twenty- 
two  years  old.    He  died  in  1610. 


3  H     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Androwcs,  to  purchase  one  share,  and  hence  the 
lawsuit  from  which  we  derive  most  of  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  playhouse.  From  this  suit  I  quote  be- 
low the  more  significant  part  relating  to  the  new 
organization : 

Humbly  complaining,  sheweth  unto  your  honorable 
lordship,  your  daily  orator,  George  Androwes,  of 
London,  silkweaver,  that  whereas  one  Lordinge 
Barry,  about  February  which  was  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  1607  [i.e.,  1608],  pretending  himself  to  be  law- 
fully possessed  of  one  moiety  of  a  messuage  or  man- 
sion house,  parcel  of  the  late  dissolved  monastery 
called  the  Whitefriars,  in  Fleet  Street,  in  the  suburbs 
of  London,  by  and  under  a  lease  made  thereof,  about 
March  then  next  following,  from  the  right  honorable 
Robert,  Lord  Buckhurst,  unto  one  Michael  Drayton 
and  Thomas  Woodford,  for  the  term  of  six  years, 
eight  months,  and  twenty  days  then  following,  for 
and  under  the  yearly  rent  of  fifty  pounds  reserved 
thereupon;  the  moiety  of  which  said  lease  and  prem- 
isses, by  mean  assignment  from  the  said  Thomas 
Woodford,  was  lawfully  settled  in  the  said  Lordinge 
Barry,  as  he  did  pretend,  together  with  the  moiety 
of  diverse  play-books,  apparel,  and  other  furnitures 
and  necessaries  used  and  employed  in  and  about  the 
said  messuage  and  the  Children  of  the  Revels,1  there 
being,  in  making  and  setting  forth  plays,  shows,  and 
interludes,  and  such  like.  And  the  said  Lordinge 
Barry  .  .  .  being  desirous  to  join  others  with  him  in 
the  interest  of  the  same,  who  might  be  contributory 
to  such  future  charges  as  should  arise  in  setting  forth 
of  plays  and  shows  there,  did  thereupon  .  .  .  solicit 

1  At  this  time  the  Children  of  Blackfriars  had  lost  their  patent, 
so  that  the  Children  at  Whitefriars  were  the  only  Revels  troupe. 


MICHAEL  DRAYTON 

(From  a  painting  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery,  London;  photograph 
copyrighted  by  Emery  Walker,  Ltd.) 


WHITEFRIARS  315 

and  persuade  your  orator  to  take  from  the  said  Barry 
an  assignment  of  a  sixth  part  of  the  messuage,  prem- 
isses, and  profits  aforesaid. 

This  passage  gives  us  an  interesting  glimpse  of 
Drayton  and  Barry  in  their  efforts  to  organize  a 
syndicate  for  exploiting  the  Children  of  His  Maj- 
esty's Revels.  They  induced  several  other  persons 
to  buy  half-shares;  and  then  they  engaged,  as  man- 
ager of  the  Children,  Martin  Slaiter,1  a  well-known 
and  thoroughly  experienced  actor.  For  his  services 
as  manager,  Slaiter  was  to  receive  one  whole  share 
in  the  organization,  and  lodgings  for  himself  and 
his  family  of  ten  in  the  building.  The  syndicate 
thus  formed  was  made  up  of  four  whole-sharers, 
Michael  Drayton,  Lordinge  Barry,  George  An- 
drowes,  and  Martin  Slaiter,  and  four  half-sharers, 
William  Trevell,  William  Cooke,  Edward  Sib- 
thorpe,  and  John  Mason.2 

The  "great  hall"  had,  of  course,  already  been 
fitted  up  for  the  acting  of  plays,  and  the  new  lessees 
did  not  at  first  contemplate  any  expenditure  on  the 
building.  Later,  however,  —  if  we  can  believe  An- 
drowes,  —  they  spent  a  not  inconsiderable  sum  for 
improvements.  The  Children  already  had  certain 
plays,  and  to  these  were  added  some  new  ones. 
Among  the  plays  in  their  repertoire  were  Day's 
Humour  Out  of  Breath,  Middleton's  Family  of  Love, 

1  Also  spelled  Slater,  Slaughter,  Slather,  Slawghter.  Henslowe 
often  refers  to  him  as  "Martin." 

2  Mr.  Wallace  (The  Century  Magazine,  1910,  lxxx,  511)  in- 
correctly says  that  Whitefriars  was  held  by  "six  equal  sharers." 


316     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Armin's  The  Two  Maids  of  Moreclacke,  Sharpham's 
Cupid's  Whirligig,  Markham  and  Machin's  The 
Dumb  Knight,  Barry's  Ram  Alley,  and  Mason's 
The  Turk.  The  last  two  writers  were  sharers,  and 
it  seems  likely  that  Drayton,  also  a  sharer  and  ex- 
perienced as  a  dramatist,  contributed  some  plays 
towards  the  stock  of  the  company. 

The  new  organization,  with  bright  prospects  for 
success,  was  launched  in  March,  1608.  Almost  at 
once,  however,  it  began  to  suffer  from  ill  luck.  In 
April  the  Children  at  Blackfriars,  by  their  per- 
formance of  Byron,  caused  King  James  to  close 
all  playhouses  in  London.  How  long  he  kept  them 
closed  we  do  not  know,  but  we  find  the  lessees  of 
Whitefriars  joining  with  the  three  other  London 
companies  in  seeking  to  have  the  inhibition 
raised.  As  the  French  Ambassador  informed  his 
Government:  "Pour  lever  cette  defense,  quatres 
autres  compagnies,  qui  y  sont  encore,  offrent  deja 
cent  mille  francs,  lesquels  pourront  bien  leur  en 
ordonner  la  permission."  l 

Even  if  this  inhibition  was  shortly  raised,  the 
Whitefriars  organization  was  not  much  better  off, 
for  in  July  the  plague  set  in  with  unusual  violence, 
and  acting  was  seriously  if  not  wholly  interrupted 
for  the  next  twelve  months  and  more.  As  a  result, 
the  profits  from  the  theatre  did  not  come  up  to  the 

1  Letter  of  M.  De  La  Boderie,  the  French  Ambassador  to  Eng- 
land; quoted  by  E.  K.  Chambers,  Modern  Language  Review,  iv, 
1 59- 


WHITEFRIARS  317 

"fair  and  false  flattering  speeches"  which  at  the 
outset  Barry  had  made  to  prospective  investors, 
and  this  led  to  bad  feeling  among  the  sharers. 

The  company  at  Blackfriars,  of  course,  was  suf- 
fering in  a  similar  way.  On  August  8,  1608,  their 
playhouse  was  surrendered  to  the  owner,  Richard 
Burbage,  and  the  Children  being  thus  left  without 
a  home  were  dispersed.  Early  in  1609,  probably  in 
February,  Robert  Keysar  (the  manager  of  the 
Blackfriars  troupe),  Philip  Rosseter,  and  others 
secured  the  lease  of  the  Whitefriars  Playhouse  from 
Drayton  and  the  rest  of  the  discontented  sharers, 
and  reassembled  there  the  Children  of  Blackfriars. 
What  became  of  the  Whitefriars  troupe  we  do  not 
know;  but  it  is  highly  likely  that  the  new  organiza- 
tion took  over  the  better  actors  from  Drayton's 
company.  At  any  rate,  we  do  not  hear  again  of 
the  Children  of  His  Majesty's  Revels. 

When  Keysar  and  this  new  troupe  of  child-actors 
moved  into  Whitefriars,  Slaiter  and  his  family  of 
ten  were  expelled  from  the  building.  This  led  to  a 
lawsuit,  and  explains  much  in  the  legal  documents 
printed  by  Greenstreet.  Slaiter  complained  with 
no  little  feeling  that  he  had  been  "riotously,  will- 
fully, violently,  and  unlawfully,  contrary  to  the 
said  articles  and  pretended  agreement  [by  which  he 
had  been  not  only  engaged  as  a  manager,  but  also 
guaranteed  a  home  for  the  period  of  "all  the  term 
of  years  in  the  lease"],  put  and  kept  out  of  his  said 
rooms  of  habitation  for  him,  this  defendant,  and 


3i8     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

his  family,  and  all  other  his  means  of  livelihood, 
thereby  leaving  this  defendant  and  his  whole 
family,  being  ten  in  number,  to  the  world  to  seek 
for  bread  and  other  means  to  live  by."  ' 

The  new  Whitefriars  troupe  acted  five  plays  at 
Court  during  the  winter  of  1609-10.  Payments 
therefor  were  made  to  Robert  Keysar,  and  the 
company  was  referred  to  merely  as  "The  Children 
of  the  Whitefriars."  But  on  January  4,  1610,  the 
company  secured  a  royal  patent  authorizing  the 
use  of  the  title  "The  Children  of  the  Queen's  Rev- 
els." 2  The  patent  was  granted  to  Robert  Daborne, 
Philip  Rosseter,  John  Tarbock,  Richard  Jones,  and 
Robert  Browne;  but  Keysar,  though  not  named  in 
the  grant,  was  still  one  of  the  important  sharers.3 

The  troupe  well  deserved  the  patronage  of  the 
Queen.  Keysar  described  the  Blackfriars  Children 
whom  he  had  reorganized  as  "a  company  of  the 
most  expert  and  skillful  actors  within  the  realm  of 
England,  to  the  number  of  eighteen  or  twenty  per- 
sons, all  or  most  of  them,  trained  up  in  that  service 
in  the  reign  of  the  late  Queen  Elizabeth  for  ten 
years  together."  4  And  to  these,  as  I  have  pointed 
out,  it  seems  likely  that  the  best  members  of  the 
bankrupt  Children  of  His  Majesty's  Revels  had 

1  Greenstreet,  The  New  Shaks per e  Society' s  Transactions  (1887- 
90),  p.  283. 

2  Printed  in  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  271. 

3  See  Keysar  v.  Burbage  et  al.,  printed  by  Mr.  Wallace,  in  his 
Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  pp.  80  ff. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  90. 


THE  SITES  OF  THE  WHITEFRIARS  AND  THE,  SALISBURY  COURT- 
PLAYHOUSES 

The  Whitefriars  Playhouse  was  just  north  of  "K.  46  "  ;  the  Salisbury  Court 
Playhouse  was  just  south  of  the  court  of  that  name.  (From  Ogilby  and 
Morgan's  Map  of  London,  1677.) 


WHITEFRIARS  319 

been  added.  The  chief  actor  of  the  new  organiza- 
tion was  Nathaniel  Field,  whose  histrionic  ability 
placed  him  beside  Edward  Alleyn  and  Richard 
Burbage.  One  of  the  first  plays  he  was  called  upon 
to  act  in  his  new  theatre  was  Jonson's  brilliant 
comedy,  Epiccene,  in  which  he  took  the  leading  role. 
The  idea  then  occurred  to  Rosseter  to  secure 
a  monopoly  on  child-acting  and  on  private  play- 
houses. The  Children  of  His  Majesty's  Revels 
had  ceased  to  exist.  The  Blackfriars  Playhouse  had 
been  closed  by  royal  command,  and  its  lease  had 
been  surrendered  to  its  owner,  Richard  Burbage. 
The  only  rival  to  the  Children  at  Whitefriars  was 
the  troupe  of  Paul's  Boys  acting  in  their  singing- 
school  behind  the  Cathedral.  How  Rosseter  at- 
tempted to  buy  them  off  is  thus  recorded  by  Rich- 
ard Burbage  and  John  Heminges: 

There  being,  as  these  defendants  verily  think,  but 
only  three  private  playhouses  in  the  city  of  London, 
the  one  of  which  being  in  the  Blackfriars  and  in  the 
hands  of  these  defendants  or  of  their  assigns,  one 
other  being  in  the  Whitefriars  in  the  hands  or  occu- 
pation of  the  said  complainant  himself  [Keysar],  his 
partners  [Rosseter,  et  al.],  or  assigns,  and  the  third 
near  St.  Paul's  Church,  then  being  in  the  hands  of 
one  Mr.  Pierce,  but  then  unused  for  a  playhouse. 
One  Mr.  Rosseter,  a  partner  of  the  said  complainant 
[Keysar]  dealt  for  and  compounded  with  the  said 
Mr.  Pierce  [Master  of  the  Paul's  Boys]  to  the  only 
benefit  of  him,  the  said  Rosseter,  the  now  complain- 
ant [Keysar],  the  rest  of  their  partners  and  company, 
and  without  the  privity,  knowledge,  or  consent  of 


32o     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

these  defendants  [the  King's  Company],  or  any  of 
them,  and  that  thereby  they,  the  said  complainant 
[Keysar]  and  the  said  Rosseter  and  their  partners  and 
company  might  advance  their  gains  and  profit  to  be 
had  and  made  in  their  said  house  in  Whitefriars,  that 
there  might  be  a  cessation  of  playing  and  plays  to  be 
acted  in  the  said  house  near  St.  Paul's  Church  afore- 
said, for  which  the  said  Rosseter  compounded  with 
the  said  Pierce  to  give  him,  the  said  Pierce,  twenty 
pounds  per  annum.1 

By  this  means  Rosseter  disposed  of  the  competi- 
tion of  the  Paul's  Boys.  But,  although  he  secured 
a  monopoly  on  child-acting,  he  failed  to  secure  a 
monopoly  on  private  playhouses,  for  shortly  after 
he  had  sealed  this  bargain  with  Pierce,  the  powerful 
King's  Men  opened  up  at  Blackfriars.  Rosseter 
promptly  requested  them  to  pay  half  the  "dead 
rent"  to  Pierce,  which  they  good-naturedly  agreed 
to  do. 

In  1613  Whitefriars  was  rented  by  certain  Lon- 
don apprentices  for  the  performance  "at  night"  of 
Robert  Taylor's  The  Hog  Hath  Lost  His  Pearl. 
The  episode  is  narrated  by  Sir  Henry  Wotton  in  a 
letter  to  Sir  Edmund  Bacon: 

On  Sunday  last,  at  night,  and  no  longer,  some  six- 
teen apprentices  (of  what  sort  you  shall  guess  by  the 
rest  of  the  story)  having  secretly  learnt  a  new  play 
without  book,2  entitled  The  Hog  Hath  Lost  His  Pearl, 

1  Wallace,  Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  p.  95. 

2  Miss  Gildersleeve,  in  her  valuable  Government  Regulation  of 
the  Elizabethan  Drama,  p.  112,  says:  "Just  what  is  the  meaning 
of  'a  new  Play  without  Book'  no  one  seems  to  have  conjee- 


WHITEFRIARS  321 

took  up  the  Whitefriars  for  their  theatre,  and  having 
invited  thither  (as  it  should  seem)  rather  their  mis- 
tresses than  their  masters,  who  were  all  to  enter  per 
buletini  for  a  note  of  distinction  from  ordinary  come- 
dians. Towards  the  end  of  the  play  the  sheriffs  (who 
by  chance  had  heard  of  it)  came  in  (as  they  say)  and 
carried  some  six  or  seven  of  them  to  perform  the  last 
act  at  Bridewell.  The  rest  are  fled.  Now  it  is  strange  to 
hear  how  sharp-witted  the  city  is,  for  they  will  needs 
have  Sir  John  Swinerton,  the  Lord  Mayor,  be  meant  by 
the  Hog,  and  the  late  Lord  Treasurer  by  the  Pearl.1 

Apparently  the  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels 
continued  successfully  at  Whitefriars  until  March, 
161 3.  On  that  date  Rosseter  agreed  with  Henslowe 
to  join  the  Revels  with  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Men 
then  acting  at  the  Swan.  The  new  organization,  fol- 
lowing the  example  of  the  King's  Men,  used  White- 
friars as  a  winter,  and  the  Swan  as  a  summer,  house. 
Thus  for  a  time  at  least  Whitefriars  came  under  the 
management  of  Henslowe. 

Rosseter's  lease  of  the  building  was  to  expire  in 
the  following  year.  He  seems  to  have  made  plans 
—  possibly  with  the  assistance  of  Henslowe  —  to 
erect  in  Whitefriars  a  more  suitable  playhouse  for 
the  newly  organized  company;  at  least  that  is  a 
plausible  interpretation  of  the  following  curious 
entry  in  Sir  George  Buc's  Office  Book:  "July  13, 

tured."  And  she  develops  the  theory  that  "  it  refers  to  the  ab- 
sence of  a  licensed  play-book,"  etc.  The  phrase  "  to  learn  with- 
out book"  meant  simply  "to  memorize." 

1  Reliquia  Wottoniance  (ed.  1672),  p.  402.  The  letter  is  dated 
merely  1612-13.  In  connection  with  the  play  one  should  study 
The  Hector  of  Germany,  1615. 


322     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

1613,  for  a  license  to  erect  a  new  playhouse  in 
Whitefriars,  &c.  £20."  l  But  the  new  playhouse 
thus  projected  never  was  built,  doubtless  because 
of  strong  local  opposition.  Instead,  Henslowe 
erected  for  the  company  a  public  playhouse  on  the 
Bankside,  known  as  "The  Hope." 

In  March,  1614,  at  the  expiration  of  one  year, 
Rosseter  withdrew  from  his  partnership  with 
Henslowe.  On  December  25,  1614,  his  lease  of  the 
Whitefriars  expired,  and  he  was  apparently  unable 
to  renew  it.  Thereupon  he  attempted  to  fit  up  a 
private  playhouse  in  the  district  of  Blackfriars,  and 
on  June  3,  161 5,  he  actually  secured  a  royal  license 
to  do  so.   But  in  this  effort,  too,  he  was  foiled.2 

After  this  we  hear  little  or  nothing  of  the  White- 
friars Playhouse.  Yet  the  building  may  occasion- 
ally have  been  used  for  dramatic  purposes.  Cun- 
ningham says :  "The  case  of  Trevill  v.  Woodford,  in 
the  Court  of  Requests,  informs  us  that  plays  were 
performed  at  the  Whitefriars  Theatre  as  late  as 
1621 ;  Sir  Anthony  Ashley,  the  then  landlord  of  the 
house,  entering  the  theatre  in  that  year,  and  turn- 
ing the  players  out  of  doors,  on  pretense  that  half  a 
year's  rent  was  yet  unpaid  to  him."  3   I  have  not 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  52. 

2  See  the  chapter  on  "  Rosseter's  Blackfriars."  The  documents 
concerned  in  this  venture  are  printed  in  The  Malone  Society's 
Collections,  1,  277. 

*  The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  iv,  90.  The  document 
printed  by  Collier  in  New  Facts  Regarding  the  Life  of  Shakespeare 
(1835),  p.  44,  as  from  a  manuscript  in  his  possession,  is,  I  think, 
an  obvious  forgery. 


WHITEFRIARS  323 

been  able  to  examine  this  document.  Neither 
Fleay  nor  Murray  has  found  any  trace  of  a  com- 
pany at  Whitefriars  after  Rosseter's  departure; 
hence  for  all  practical  purposes  we  may  regard 
the  Whitefriars  Playhouse  as  having  come  to  the 
end  of  its  career  in  1614. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
THE  HOPE 

ON  August  29,  161 1,  Henslowe  became  man- 
ager of  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Men.  Having 
agreed  among  other  things  to  furnish  them  with  a 
playhouse,1  and  no  longer  being  in  possession  of 
the  Rose,  he  rented  the  old  Swan  and  maintained 
them  there  throughout  the  year  161 2. 

In  March  of  the  following  year,  161 3,  he  entered 
into  a  partnership  with  Philip  Rosseter  (the  man- 
ager of  the  private  playhouse  of  Whitefriars),  and 
"joined"  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Men  with  Rosse- 
ter's  excellent  troupe  of  the  Queen's  Revels.  Ap- 
parently the  intention  of  Henslowe  and  Rosseter 
was  to  form  a  company  strong  enough  to  compete 
on  equal  terms  with  the  King's  Men.  In  imitation 
of  the  King's  Men,  who  used  the  Globe  as  a  sum- 
mer and  the  Blackfriars  as  a  winter  home,  the 
newly  amalgamated  company  was  to  use  the  Swan 
and  the  Whitefriars.2   And  the  chief  actor  of  the 

1  The  agreement  has  been  lost,  but  for  a  probably  similar  agree- 
ment, made  with  the  actor  Nathaniel  Field,  see  Greg,  Henslowe 
Papers,  p.  23. 

1  Daborne  writes  to  Henslowe  on  June  5,  1613:  "The  company 
told  me  you  were  expected  there  yesterday  to  conclude  about 
their  coming  over  .  .  .  my  own  play  which  shall  be  ready  before 
they  come  over."  This,  I  suspect,  refers  to  the  moving  of  the 
company  to  the  Swan  for  the  summer.    (See  Greg,  Henslowe  Pa- 


THE   HOPE  325 

troupe,  corresponding  to  Richard  Burbage  of  the 
King's  Men,  was  to  be  Nathaniel  Field,  then  at 
the  height  of  his  powers : 

Cokes.  Which  is  your  Burbage  now? 
Leatherhead.   What  mean  you  by  that,  sir? 
Cokes.   Your  best  actor,  your  Field. 
Littlewit.  Good,  i'  faith!  you  are  even  with  me,  sir.1 

Among  their  playwngnts  were  Ben  Jonson,  Philip 
Massinger,  John  Fletcher,  and  Robert  Daborne, 
not  to  mention  Field,  who  in  addition  to  acting 
wrote  excellent  plays. 

If  it  was  the  purpose  of  Henslowe  and  Rosseter 
to  compete  with  the  Globe  Company  in  a  winter  as 
well  as  in  a  summer  house,  that  purpose  was  en- 
dangered by  the  fact  that  Rosseter's  lease  of  his 
private  theatre  expired  within  a  year  and  a  half, 
and  could  not  be  renewed.  Rosseter  and  Henslowe, 
as  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  chapter,  seem  to 
have  attempted  to  erect  in  Whitefriars  a  winter 
home  for  their  troupe;  so,  at  least,  I  have  inter- 
preted the  curious  entry  in  Sir  George  Buc's  Office 
Book:  "July  13,  161 3,  for  a  license  to  erect  a  new 
playhouse  in  the  Whitefriars,  &c.  £20."  2  The  at- 
tempt, however,  was  foiled,  probably  by  the  strong 
opposition  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  district. 

pers,  p.  72.)  That  Henslowe  was  manager  of  a  "private"  house 
in  1613  is  revealed  by  another  letter  from  Daborne,  dated  Decem- 
ber 9,  1613.    (See  Greg,  ibid.,  p.  79.) 

1  Bartholomew  Fair,  v,  iii.  The  part  of  Littlewit  was  presum- 
ably taken  by  Field  himself. 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  52. 


326     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Shortly  after  this,  Henslowe  made  plans  to  pro- 
vide the  company  with  a  new  and  better  public 
playhouse  on  the  Bankside,  more  conveniently 
situated  than  the  Swan.  The  old  Bear  Garden  was 
beginning  to  show  signs  of  decay,  and,  doubtless, 
would  soon  have  to  be  rebuilt.  This  suggested  to 
Henslowe  the  idea  of  tearing  down  that  ancient 
structure  and  erecting  in  its  place  a  larger  and 
handsomer  building  to  serve  both  for  the  perform- 
ance of  plays  and  for  the  baiting  of  animals.  To 
this  plan  Jacob  Meade,  Henslowe's  partner  in  the 
ownership  of  the  Bear  Garden,  agreed. 

Accordingly,  on  August  29,  161 3,  Henslowe  and 
Meade  signed  a  contract  with  a  carpenter  named 
Katherens  to  pull  down  the  Bear  Garden  and  erect 
in  its  place  a  new  structure.  The  original  contract, 
preserved  among  the  Henslowe  Papers,  is  one  of 
the  most  valuable  documents  we  have  relating  to 
the  early  theatres.  It  is  too  long  and  verbose  for 
insertion  here,  but  I  give  below  a  summary  of  its 
contents.1  Katherens  agreed: 

1.  To  "pull  down"  the  Bear  Garden  and  "the 
stable  wherein  the  bulls  and  horses"  had  been 
kept;  and  "near  or  upon  the  said  place  where  the 
said  game-place  did  heretofore  stand,"  to  "newly 
erect,  build,  and  set  up"  a  "playhouse,  fit  and  con- 
venient in  all  things  both  for  players  to  play  in,  and 
for  the  game  of  bears  and  bulls  to  be  baited  in." 

1  The  contract  is  printed  in  full  in  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  19. 


''**-&■/  A^;        L  *" 


^  ~r 


-u 


:"4- 


THE   HOPE   PLAYHOUSE.    OR   SECOND    BEAR    GARDEN" 
From  Hollar's  Viae  of  London  (1647). 


THE   HOPE  327 

2.  "To  build  the  same  of  such  large  compass, 
form,  wideness,  and  height  as  the  playhouse  called 
the  Swan." 

3.  To  provide  for  the  building  "a  good  sure,  and 
sufficient  foundation  of  bricks  .  .  .  thirteen  inches 
at  the  least  above  the  ground." 

4.  To  make  three  galleries:  "the  inner  principal 
posts  of  the  first  story  to  be  twelve  feet  in  height, 
and  ten  inches  square;  in  the  middle  story  .  .  . 
eight  inches  square;  in  the  upper  story  .  .  .  seven 
inches  square."  * 

5.  To  "make  two  boxes  in  the  lowermost  story, 
fit  and  decent  for  gentlemen  to  sit  in,"  and  in  the 
rest  of  the  galleries  "partitions  between  the  rooms 
as  they  are  in  the  said  playhouse  called  the  Swan." 

6.  To  construct "  a  stage,  to  be  carried  and  taken 
away,  and  to  stand  upon  tressels,  good,  substan- 
tial, and  sufficient  for  the  carrying  and  bearing  of 
such  a  stage." 

7.  To  "build  the  heavens  all  over  the  said  stage, 
to  be  borne  or  carried  without  any  posts  or  suppor- 
ters to  be  fixed  or  set  upon  the  said  stage." 

8.  To  equip  the  stage  with  "  a  fit  and  convenient 
tyre-house." 

9.  To  "build  two  staircases  without  and  adjoin- 
ing to  the  said  playhouse  ...  of  such  largeness  and 

1  The  height  is  given  for  the  first  story  only.  We  may  assume 
that  the  middle  and  uppermost  stories  were  of  diminishing 
heights,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Fortune  Playhouse,  in  which  the 
galleries  were  respectively  twelve,  eleven,  and  nine  feet  in 
height. 


328     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

height  as  the  staircases  of  the  said  playhouse  called 
the  Swan." 

10.  "To  new  build,  erect,  and  set  up  the  said 
bull-house  and  stable  ...  of  that  largeness  and 
fitness  as  shall  be  sufficient  to  keep  and  hold  six 
bulls  and  three  horses." 

11.  "To  newtyle  with  English  tyles  all  the  up- 
per roof  of  the  said  playhouse  .  .  .  and  stable." 

12.  To  have  the  playhouse  finished  "upon  or 
before  the  last  day  of  November,"  1613. 

For  all  this  Katherens  was  to  receive  the  sum  of 
£360;  but  since  Henslowe  and  Meade  supplied  a 
large  share  of  the  lumber  and  other  materials,  the 
total  cost  of  the  building  may  be  estimated  as  not 
less  than  £600. 

When  completed,  the  new  playhouse  was  ap- 
propriately christened  "The  Hope." 

It  has  been  generally  assumed  that  a  picture  of 
the  Hope  is  given  in  Visscher's  View  of  London, 
published  in  1616;  but  this,  I  think,  is  exceedingly 
doubtful.  In  drawing  the  Bankside,  Visscher  rather 
slavishly  copied  the  Agas  map  of  1560,  inserting  a 
few  new  buildings,  —  notably  the  playhouses, — 
and  it  is  virtually  certain  that  he  represented  the 
"Bear  Garden"  (so  he  distinctly  calls  it)  and  the 
Globe  as  they  were  before  their  reconstruction.1 

1  The  Merian  View  of  London,  published  in  1638  at  Frankfort- 
am-Main,  is  merely  a  copy  of  the  Visscher  view  with  the  addition 
of  certain  details  from  another  and  earlier  view  not  yet  identi- 


THE   HOPE  329 

The  first  representation  of  the  Hope  is  to  be  found 
in  Hollar's  splendid  View  of  London  published  in 
1647  (see  page  326).  At  this  time  the  building, 
which  had  for  many  years  been  devoted  wholly 
to  the  royal  sports  of  bull-  and  bear-baiting,  was 
still  standing.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  an  artist 
who  so  carefully  represented  the  famous  edifices 
of  the  city  should  have  greatly  erred  in  drawing  the 
"Bear  Baiting  House,"  —  a  structure  more  curious 
than  they,  and  quite  as  famous. 

Hollar  represents  the  Hope  as  circular.  Accord- 
ing to  the  contract  Katherens  was  "to  build  the 
same  of  such  large  compass,  form,  wideness,  and 
height  as  the  playhouse  called  the  Swan."  Whether 
the  word  "form"  was  intended  to  apply  to  the  ex- 
terior of  the  building  we  do  not  know.  The  Swan 
was  decahedral;  Visscher  represents  the  "Bear 
Garden"  as  octagonal  (which  is  correct  for  the 
Bear  Garden  that  preceded  the  Hope).  But  since 
the  exterior  was  of  lime  and  plaster,  and  a  decahe- 
dral form  had  no  advantage,  Katherens  may  well 
have  constructed  a  circular  building  as  Hollar  in- 
dicates. Perhaps  it  is  significant  in  this  connection 
that  John  Taylor,  the  Water-Poet,  in  his  Bull, 
Bear,  and  Horse,  refers  to  the  Hope  as  a  "sweet, 
rotuntious  college."  Significant  also,  perhaps,  is  the 

fied.  It  has  no  independent  value.  The  View  of  London  printed  in 
Howell's  Londinopolis  (1657),  is  merely  a  slavish  copy  of  theMer- 
ian  view.  Visscher's  representation  of  the  Bear  Garden  does  not 
differ  in  any  essential  way  from  the  representation  in  Hondius's 
View  of  1610.  For  a  fuller  discussion  see  pages  126,  146,  248. 


330     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

clause  in  the  contract  by  which  Katherens  was  re- 
quired to  "build  the  heavens  all  over  the  stage," 
for  this  exactly  describes  the  heavens  as  drawn  by 
Hollar.  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  in  the  View 
of  1647  we  have  a  reasonably  faithful  representa- 
tion of  the  Hope. 

The  Hope  was  probably  opened  shortly  after 
November  30,  161 3,  the  date  at  which  Katherens 
had  bound  himself  to  have  the  building  "fully  fin- 
ished," and  it  was  occupied,  of  course,  by  the  Hens- 
lowe  and  Rosseter  troupe  of  actors.  The  arrange- 
ment of  the  movable  stage  enabled  Henslowe  and 
Meade  to  use  the  building  also  for  animal-bait- 
ing. According  to  the  contract  with  the  actors, 
the  latter  were  to  "lie  still  one  day  in  fourteen"  for 
the  baiting.1  This  may  not  have  been  a  serious 
interruption  for  the  players;  but  the  presence  of 
the  stable,  the  bear  dens,  and  the  kennels  for  the 
dogs  must  have  rendered  the  playhouse  far  from 
pleasant  to  the  audiences.  Ben  Jonson,  in  the 
Induction  to  his  Bartholomew  Fair,  acted  at  the 
Hope  in  October,  1614,  remarks:  "And  though 
the  Fair  be  not  kept  in  the  same  region  that  some 
here  perhaps  would  have  it,  yet  think  that  therein 
the  author  hath  observed  a  special  decorum,  the 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  88;  cf.  p.  125,  where  animal-baiting 
is  said  to  be  used  "  one  day  of  every  four  days"  — a  possible  error 
for  "fourteen  days."  In  the  manuscript  notes  to  the  Phillipps 
copy  of  Stow's  Survey  (1631),  we  are  told  that  baiting  was  used 
at  the  Hope  on  Tuesdays  and  Thursdays;  but  the  anonymous 
commentator  is  very  inaccurate. 


THE  HOPE  PLAYHOUSE,  OR  SECOND  BEAR  GARDEN 

The  upper  view  is  from  Hollar's  Post-conflagration  map  in  the  Crace  Col- 
lection of  the  British  Museum;  the  lower  view  is  from  Faithome's  Map  of 
London  (1658). 


33*     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

place  being  as  dirty  as  Smithfield,  and  as  stinking 
every  whit."  * 

In  March,  1614,  —  that  is,  at  the  completion  of 
one  full  year  under  the  joint  management  of  Hens- 
lowe  and  Rosseter,  —  the  amalgamated  company 
was  "broken,"  and  Rosseter  withdrew,  selling  his 
interest  in  the  company's  apparel  to  Henslowe  and 
Meade  for  £63.  The  latter  at  once  reorganized  the 
actors  under  the  patent  of  the  Lady  Elizabeth's 
Men,  and  continued  them  at  the  Hope.2  The  gen- 
eral excellence  of  the  troupe  thus  formed  is  referred 
to  by  John  Taylor,  the  Water-Poet,  in  the  lines : 

And  such  a  company  (I'll  boldly  say) 

That  better  (nor  the  like)  e'er  play'd  a  play.3 

But  this  encomium  may  have  been  in  large  meas- 
ure due  to  gratitude,  for  the  company  had  just 
saved  the  Water-Poet  from  a  very  embarrassing 
situation.  The  amusing  episode  which  gave  occa- 
sion to  this  deserves  to  be  chronicled  in  some  detail. 
With  "a  thousand  bills  posted  over  the  city" 
Taylor  had  advertised  to  the  public  that  at  the 
Hope  Playhouse  on  October  7,  1614,  he  would  en- 
gage in  a  contest  of  wit  with  one  William  Fennor, 
who  proudly  styled  himself  "The  King's  Majesty's 

1  The  Rose  Playhouse  was  likewise  affected.  Dekker,  in 
Satiromastix,  hi,  iv,  says:  "  'Th  'ast  a  breath  as  sweet  as  the  Rose 
that  grows  by  the  Bear  Garden." 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  87.  The  articles  of  agreement  be- 
tween Henslowe  and  Meade  and  the  company,  are  printed  by 
Greg  on  page  23. 

»  Works,  Folio  of  1630;  The  Spenser  Society's  reprint,  p.  307. 


THE   HOPE  333 

Riming  Poet."  *  On  the  appointed  day  the  house 
was  "fill'd  with  a  great  audience"  that  had  paid 
extra  money  to  hear  the  contest  between  two  such 
well-known  extemporal  wits.  But  Fennor  did  not 
appear.  The  result  may  best  be  told  by  Taylor 
himself: 

I  then  stept  out,  their  angers  to  appease; 
But  they  all  raging,  like  tempestuous  seas, 
Cry'd  out,  their  expectations  were  defeated, 
And  how  they  all  were  cony-catch'd  and  cheated. 
Some  laught,  some  swore,  some  star'd  and  stamp'd 

and  curst, 
And  in  confused  humors  all  out  burst. 
I  (as  I  could)  did  stand  the  desp'rate  shock, 
And  bid  the  brunt  of  many  dang'rous  knock. 
For  now  the  stinkards,  in  their  ireful  wraths, 
Bepelted  me  with  lome,  with  stones,  with  laths. 
One  madly  sits  like  bottle-ale  and  hisses; 
Another  throws  a  stone,  and  'cause  he  misses, 
He  yawnes  and  bawles,  .  .  . 
Some  run  to  th'  door  to  get  again  their  coin  .  .  . 
One  valiantly  stepped  upon  the  stage, 
And  would  tear  down  the  hangings  in  his  rage  .  .  . 
What  I  endur'd  upon  that  earthly  hell 
My  tongue  or  pen  cannot  describe  it  well.2 

At  this  point  the  actors  came  to  his  rescue  and 
presented  a  play  that  mollified  the  audience.  Tay- 
lor had  to  content  himself  with  a  printed  justifica- 
tion.  The  bitter  invective  of  Taylor  against  Fen- 

1  Fennor  is  not  to  be  confused  (as  is  commonly  done)  with 
Vennar  (see  p.  177).  Such  wit-contests  were  popular;  Fennor  had 
recently  challenged  Kendall,  on  the  Fortune  Stage. 

1  John  Taylor's  Works,  Folio  of  1 630,  p.  142;  The  Spenser 
Society's  reprint,  p.  304. 


334     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

nor,  Fennor's  reply,  and  Taylor's  several  answers 
are  to  be  found  in  the  folio  edition  of  the  Water- 
Poet's  works.  The  episode  doubtless  furnished 
much  amusement  to  the  city. 

Some  three  weeks  after  this  event,  on  October 
31,  1614,  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Men  produced  with 
great  success  Jonson's  Bartholomew  Fair;  and  on 
November  1  they  were  called  upon  to  give  the  play 
at  Court.  But  the  career  of  the  company  was  in  the 
main  unhappy.  Henslowe  managed  their  affairs  on 
the  theory  that  "should  these  fellows  come  out  of 
my  debt,  I  should  have  no  rule  with  them."  '  Ac- 
cordingly in  three  years  he  "broke"  and  again 
reorganized  them  no  fewer  than  five  times. 

At  last,  in  February,  1615,  he  not  only  "broke" 
the  company,  but  severed  his  connection  with  them 
for  ever.  He  turned  the  hired  men  over  to  other 
troupes,  and  sold  the  stock  of  apparel  "to  strang- 
ers" for  £400.  The  indignant  actors,  in  June,  161 5, 
drew  up  "Articles  of  Grievance"  in  which  they 
charged  Henslowe  with  having  extorted  from  the 
company  by  unjust  means  the  sum  of  £567;  and 
also  "Articles  of  Oppression"  in  which  they  ac- 
cused him  of  various  dishonorable  practices  in  his 
dealings  with  them.2 

Shortly  after  severing  his  connection  with  the 

Lady  Elizabeth's  Men,  Henslowe,  in  March,  161 5, 

seems  to  have  taken  over  Prince  Charles's  Men, 

who,  it  appears,  had  been  acting  at  the  Swan.  To 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  89.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  86,  89. 


THE   HOPE  335 

this  new  company  —  the  "strangers"  referred  to, 
I  think  —  he  had  already  transferred  some  of  the 
hirelings,  and  had  sold  the  Hope  stock  of  apparel 
for  £400. 

Henslowe  died  early  in  January  of  the  following 
year,  1616,  and  his  interest  in  the  theatre  passed  to 
Edward  Alleyn.  On  March  20,  1616,  Alleyn  and 
Meade  engaged  Prince  Charles's  Men  to  continue 
at  the  Hope  "according  to  the  former  articles  of 
agreement  had  and  made  with  the  said  Philip 
[Henslowe]  and  Jacob  [Meade]."  '  The  actors  ac- 
knowledged themselves  indebted  to  Henslowe  "for 
a  stock  of  apparel  used  for  playing  apparel,  to  the 
value  of  £400,  heretofore  delivered  unto  them  by 
the  said  Philip,"  2  —  the  stock  formerly  used  by 
the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Men;  and  Alleyn  and  Meade 
agreed  to  accept  £200  in  full  discharge  of  that 
debt.3 

In  the  winter  of  1616-17,  Prince  Charles's  Men 
quarreled  with  Meade,  who  had  appropriated  an 
extra  day  for  his  bear-baiting.  Rosseter  had  just 
completed  a  new  private  theatre  in  Porter's  Hall, 

1  Collier,  Memoirs  of  Edward  Alleyn,  p.  127;  Greg,  Henslowe 
Papers,  p.  91. 

2  Collier,  Memoirs  of  Edward  Alleyn,  p.  127. 

8  My  interpretation  of  the  relation  of  Henslowe  to  Prince 
Charles's  Men  differs  from  the  interpretation  given  by  Fleay  and 
adopted  by  Greg  and  others.  For  the  evidence  bearing  on  the 
case  see  Fleay,  Stage,  pp.  188,  262;  Greg,  Henslowe' s  Diary,  11, 
138;  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  90,  note;  Chambers,  Modern 
Language  Review,  iv,  165;  Cunningham,  Revels,  p.  xliv;  Wallace, 
Englische  Studien,  xliii,  390;  Murray,  English  Dramatic  Com- 
panies. 


336     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Blackfriars,  and  that  stood  invitingly  open.  So 
about  February  they  abandoned  the  Hope,  and 
wrote  a  letter  of  explanation  to  Edward  Alleyn:  "I 
hope  you  mistake  not  our  removal  from  the  Bank- 
side.  We  stood  the  intemperate  weather,  'till  more 
intemperate  Mr.  Meade  thrust  us  over,  taking  the 
day  from  us  which  by  course  was  ours."  1 

After  the  company  quarreled  with  Meade  and 
deserted  the  Hope,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
building  was  again  used  for  plays.  It  became  asso- 
ciated almost  entirely  with  animal-baiting,  fencing, 
feats  of  activity,  and  such-like  performances;  and 
gradually  the  very  name  "Hope,"  which  was  iden- 
tified with  acting,  gave  way  to  the  earlier  designa- 
tion "Bear  Garden."  In  1632  the  author  of  Hol- 
land's Leaguer  remarks  that  "wild  beasts  and  glad- 
iators did  most  possess  it";  and  such  must  have 
been  the  chief  use  of  the  building  down  to  1642, 
when  animal-baiting  was  prohibited  by  Parlia- 
ment.2 

On  January  14,  1647,  at  the  disposition  of  the 
Church  lands,  the  Hope  was  sold  for  £1783  15J.3 

In  certain  manuscript  notes  entered  in  the  Phil- 
lipps  copy  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1),  we  read: 

The  Hope,  on  the  Bankside,  in  Southwarke,  com- 
monly called  the  Bear  Garden,  a  playhouse  for  stage- 

1  Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  p.  93.  Cf.  also  the  chapter  on  "Ros- 
scter's  Blackfriars." 

2  Collier,  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  hi, 
102;  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres,  p.  237. 

*  Arthur  Tiler,  St.  Saviour's,  p.  51;  Reed's  Dodsley,  ix,  175. 


THE   HOPE 


337 


plays  on  Mondays,  Wednesdays,  Fridays,  and  Satur- 
days, and  for  the  baiting  of  Bears  on  Tuesdays  and 
Thursdays,  the  stage  being  made  to  take  up  and  down 
when  they  please.  It  was  built  in  the  year  1610,  and 
now  pulled  down  to  make  tenements,  by  Thomas 
Walker,  a  petticoat-maker  in  Cannon  Street,  on 
Tuesday,  the  25  day  of  March,  1656.  Seven  of  Mr. 
Godfrey's  bears,  by  the  command  of  Thomas  Pride, 
then  high  sheriff  of  Surrey,  were  then  shot  to  death 
on  Saturday  the  9  day  of  February,  1655  [i.e.  1656], 
by  a  company  of  soldiers.1 

The  mistakes  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  note  are 
obvious,  yet  the  latter  part  is  so  circumstantial 
that  we  cannot  well  doubt  its  general  accuracy. 
The  building,  however,  was  not  pulled  down  "to 
the  ground,"  though  its  interior  may  have  been 
converted  into  tenements. 

At  the  Restoration,  when  the  royal  sport  of  bear- 
baiting  was  revived,  the  Hope  was  again  fitted  up 
as  an  amphitheatre  and  opened  to  the  public.  The 
Earl  of  Manchester,  on  September  29,  1664,  wrote 
to  the  city  authorities,  requesting  that  the  butchers 
be  required,  as  of  old,  to  provide  food  for  the  dogs 
and  bears: 

He  had  been  informed  by  the  Master  of  His  Maj- 
esty's Game  of  Bears  and  Bulls,  and  others,  that  the 
Butchers'  Company  had  formerly  caused  all  their 
ofFal  in  Eastcheap  and  Newgate  Market  to  be 
conveyed  by  the  beadle  of  that  Company  unto  two 

1  Printed  in  The  Academy,  October  28,  1882,  p.  314.  As  to 
"Mr.  Godfrey"  see  Collier,  The  History  of  English  Dramatic 
Poetry  (1879),  in,  102. 


338     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

barrow  houses,  conveniently  placed  on  the  river  side, 
for  the  provision  and  feeding  of  the  King's  Game  of 
Bears,  which  custom  had  been  interrupted  in  the  late 
troubles  when  the  bears  were  killed.  His  Majesty's 
game  being  now  removed  to  the  usual  place  on  the 
Bankside,  by  Order  of  the  Council,  he- recommended 
the  Court  of  Aldermen  to  direct  the  Master  and  War- 
dens of  the  Butchers'  Company  to  have  their  offal 
conveyed  as  formerly  for  the  feeding  of  the  bears,  &C.1 

For  some  years  the  Bear  Garden  flourished  as  it 
had  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth  and  James.  It  was 
frequently  visited  by  Samuel  Pepys,  who  has  left 
vivid  accounts  of  several  performances  there.  In  his 
Diary,  August  14,  1666,  he  writes: 

After  dinner  with  my  wife  and  Mercer  to  the  Bear- 
garden; where  I  have  not  been,  I  think,  of  many 
years,  and  saw  some  good  sport  of  the  bull's  tossing 
of  the  dogs:  one  into  the  very  boxes.  But  it  is  a  very 
rude  and  nasty  pleasure.  We  had  a  great  many  hec- 
tors in  the  same  box  with  us  (and  one,  very  fine,  went 
into  the  pit,  and  played  his  dog  for  a  wager,  which  was 
a  strange  sport  for  a  gentleman),  where  they  drank 
wine,  and  drank  Mercer's  health  first;  which  I 
pledged  with  my  hat  off. 

John  Evelyn,  likewise,  in  his  Diary,  June  16, 
1670,  records  a  visit  to  the  Bear  Garden: 

I  went  with  some  friends  to  the  Bear  Garden,  where 
was  cock-fighting,  dog-fighting,  bear-  and  bull-baiting, 
it  being  a  famous  day  for  all  these  butcherly  sports,  or 
rather  barbarous  cruelties.    The  bulls  did  exceeding 

1  The  Remembrancia,  p.  478.  Quoted  by  Ordish,  Early  London 
Theatres,  p.  24 1. 


THE   HOPE  339 

well;  but  the  Irish  wolf-dog  exceeded,  which  was  a 
tall  greyhound,  a  stately  creature  indeed,  who  beat  a 
cruel  mastiff.  One  of  the  bulls  tossed  a  dog  full  into 
a  lady's  lap  as  she  sat  in  one  of  the  boxes  at  a  consid- 
erable height  from  the  arena.  Two  poor  dogs  were 
killed;  and  so  all  ended  with  the  ape  on  horseback,  and 
I  most  heartily  weary  of  the  rude  and  dirty  pastime, 
which  I  had  not  seen,  I  think,  in  twenty  years  before. 

On  January  7,  1676,  the  Spanish  Ambassador 
was  entertained  at  the  Bear  Garden,  as  we  learn 
from  a  warrant,  dated  March  28,  1676,  for  the  pay- 
ment of  £10  "to  James  Davies,  Esq.,  Master  of 
His  Majesty's  Bears,  Bulls,  and  Dogs,  for  making 
ready  the  rooms  at  the  Bear  Garden,  and  baiting 
of  the  bears  before  the  Spanish  Ambassador,  the 
7  January  last,  1675  [6]."  1 

Rendle  2  quotes  from  The  Loyal  Protestant  an 
advertisement  of  an  entertainment  to  be  given  so 
late  as  1682  "at  the  Hope  on  the  Bankside,  being 
His  Majesty's  Bear  Garden."  And  Malcolm  writes 
the  following  account  of  the  baiting  of  a  horse 
there  in  April  of  the  same  year: 

Notice  was  given  in  the  papers  that  on  the  twelfth 
of  April  a  horse,  of  uncommon  strength,  and  between 
18  and  19  hands  high,  would  be  baited  to  death  at  his 
Majesty's  Bear-Garden  at  the  Hope  on  the  Bankside, 
for  the  amusement  of  the  Morocco  ambassador,  many 
of  the  nobility  who  knew  the  horse,  and  any  others 
who  would  pay  the  price  of  admission.    It  seems  this 

1  British  Museum  Additional  MSS.  5750;  quoted  by  Cunning- 
ham, Handbook  of  London  (1849),  1,  67. 

8  The  Antiquarian  Magazine  and  Bibliographer,  vm,  59. 


340     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

animal  originally  belonged  to  the  Earl  of  Rochester, 
and  being  of  a  ferocious  disposition,  had  killed  several 
of  his  brethren;  for  which  misdeed  he  was  sold  to 
the  Earl  of  Dorchester;  in  whose  service,  committing 
several  similar  offenses,  he  was  transferred  to  the 
worse  than  savages  who  kept  the  Bear-Garden.  On 
the  day  appointed  several  dogs  were  set  upon  the 
vindictive  steed,  which  he  destroyed  or  drove  from 
the  arena;  at  this  instant  his  owners  determined  to 
preserve  him  for  a  future  day's  sport,  and  directed  a 
person  to  lead  him  away;  but  before  the  horse  had 
reached  London  Bridge  the  spectators  demanded  the 
fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  baiting  him  to  death, 
and  began  to  destroy  the  building:  to  conclude,  the 
poor  beast  was  brought  back,  and  other  dogs  set  upon 
him,  without  effect,  when  he  was  stabbed  to  death 
with  a  sword.1 

This  is  the  last  reference  to  the  Hope  that  I  have 
been  able  to  discover.  Soon  after  this  date  the 
"royal  sport  of  bulls,  bears,  and  dogs"  was  moved 
to  Hockley-in-the-hole,  Clerkenwell,  where,  as  the 
advertisements  inform  us,  at  "His  Majesty's  Bear 
Garden"  the  baiting  of  animals  was  to  be  fre- 
quently seen.2  Strype,  in  his  Survey  of  London,  thus 
describes  Bear  Garden  Alley  on  the  Bankside: 

1  James  Peller  Malcolm,  Anecdotes  of  the  Manners  and  Cus- 
toms of  London  from  the  Roman  Invasion  to  the  Year  1700  (London, 
1811),  p.  425. 

2  The  earliest  advertisement  of  the  Bear  Garden  at  Hockley- 
in-the-hole  that  I  have  come  upon  is  dated  1700.  For  a  discussion 
of  the  sports  there  see  J.  P.  Malcolm,  Anecdotes  of  the  Manners 
and  Customs  of  London  during  the  Eighteenth  Century  (1808), 
p.  321;  Cunningham,  Handbook  of  London,  under  "Hockley"; 
W.  B.  Boulton,  Amusements  of  Old  London,  vol.  I,  chap.  1. 


THE   HOPE  341 

Bear  Alley  runs  into  Maiden  Lane.  Here  is  a  Glass 
House;  and  about  the  middle  is  a  new-built  Court, 
well  inhabited,  called  Bear  Garden  Square,  so  called 
as  built  in  the  place  where  the  Bear  Garden  formerly 
stood,  until  removed  to  the  other  side  of  the  water: 
which  is  more  convenient  for  the  butchers,  and  such 
like  who  are  taken  with  such  rustic  sports  as  the  bait- 
ing of  bears  and  bulls.1 

In  the  map  which  he  gives  of  this  region  (repro- 
duced on  page  245)  the  position  of  the  Hope  is 
clearly  marked  by  the  square  near  the  middle  of 
Bear  Alley. 

1  Ordish  {Early  London  Theatres,  p.  242)  is  mistaken  in  think- 
ing that  the  old  building  was  converted  into  a  glass  house.  He 
says:  "The  last  reference  to  the  Hope  shows  that  it  had  declined 
to  the  point  of  extinction,"  and  he  quotes  an  advertisement  from 
the  Gazette,  June  18,  1681,  as  follows:  "There  is  now  made  at  the 
Bear  Garden  glass-house,  on  the  Bankside,  crown  window-glass, 
much  exceeding  French  glass  in  all  its  qualifications,  which  may 
be  squared  into  all  sizes  of  sashes  for  windows,  and  other  uses,  and 
may  be  had  at  most  glaziers  in  London."  From  Strype's  Survey 
it  is  evident  that  the  glass  house  was  in  Bear  Garden  Alley,  but 
not  on  the  site  of  the  old  Bear  Garden. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
ROSSETER'S  BLACKFRIARS,  OR  PORTER'S  HALL 

PHILIP  ROSSETER,  the  poet  and  musician, 
first  appears  as  a  theatrical  manager  in  1610, 
when  he  secured  a  royal  patent  for  the  Children  of 
the  Queen's  Revels  to  act  at  Whitefriars.  This 
company  performed  there  successfully  under  his 
management  until  March,  161 3,  when,  for  some 
unknown  reason,  he  formed  a  partnership  with 
Philip  Henslowe,  who  was  managing  the  Lady 
Elizabeth's  Men  at  the  Swan.  The  two  companies 
were  combined,  and  the  new  organization,  under 
the  name  of  "The  Lady  Elizabeth's  Men,"  made 
use  of  both  playhouses,  the  Swan  as  a  summer  and 
the  Whitefriars  as  a  winter  home. 

As  already  explained  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
Rosseter's  lease  on  the  Whitefriars  Playhouse  was 
to  expire  in  1614,  and  apparently  he  was  unable 
to  renew  the  lease.1  Naturally  he  and  his  partner 
Henslowe  were  anxious  to  secure  a  private  play- 

1  Nathaniel  Field,  the  leading  actor  at  Whitefriars,  published 
A  Woman  is  a  Weathercock  in  1612,  with  the  statement  to  the 
reader:  "  If  thou  hast  anything  to  say  to  me,  thou  know'st  where 
to  hear  of  me  for  a  year  or  two,  and  no  more,  I  assure  thee." 
Possibly  this  reflects  the  failure  of  the  managers  to  renew  the 
lease;  after  1614  Field  did  not  know  where  he  would  be  acting. 
But  editors  have  generally  regarded  it  as  meaning  that  Field 
intended  to  withdraw  from  acting. 


ROSSETER'S   BLACKFRIARS        343 

house  in  the  city  to  serve  as  a  winter  home  for  their 
troupe,  especially  since  the  Swan  was  poorly  situ- 
ated for  winter  patronage.  This  may  explain  the 
following  entry  in  Sir  George  Buc's  Office-Book: 
"July  13,  161 3,  for  a  license  to  erect  a  new  play- 
house in  Whitefriars  &c.  £20."  '  The  new  play- 
house, however,  was  not  built.  Probably  the  op- 
position of  the  inhabitants  of  the  district  led  to  its 
prohibition. 

At  the  expiration  of  one  year,  in  March,  1614, 
Rosseter  withdrew  from  his  partnership  with  Hens- 
lowe,  and  on  the  old  patent  of  the  Children  of  the 
Queen's  Revels  (which  he  had  retained)  organized 
a  new  company  to  travel  in  the  country. 

In  the  following  year,  1615,  he  and  certain  others, 
Philip  Kingman,  Robert  Jones,  and  Ralph  Reeve, 
secured  a  lease  of  "diverse  buildings,  cellars,  sol- 
lars,  chambers,  and  yards  for  the  building  of  a 
playhouse  thereupon  for  the  better  practising  and 
exercise  of  the  said  Children  of  the  Revels;  all 
which  premises  are  situate  and  being  within  the 
precinct  of  the  Blackfriars,  near  Puddlewharf,  in 
the  suburbs  of  London,  called  by  the  name  of  the 
Lady  Saunders's  House,  or  otherwise  Porter's 
Hall."  2  It  was  their  purpose  to  convert  this  hall 
into  a  playhouse  to  rival  the  near-by  Blackfriars; 
and  in  accordance  with  this  purpose,  on  June  3, 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  52. 

2  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  277.    For  the  location  of 
Puddlewharf  see  the  map  of  the  Blackfriars  precinct  on  page  94. 


344     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

1615,  Rosscter  secured  a  royal  license  under  the 
Great  Seal  of  England  "to  erect,  build,  and  set  up 
in  and  upon  the  said  premises  before  mentioned 
one  convenient  playhouse  for  the  said  Children  of 
the  Revels,  the  same  playhouse  to  be  used  by  the 
Children  of  the  Revels  for  the  time  being  of  the 
Queene's  Majesty,  and  for  the  Prince's  Players, 
and  for  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Players."  l 

The  work  of  converting  Porter's  Hall  into  a  play- 
house seems  to  have  begun  at  once.  On  September 
26,  161 5,  the  Privy  Council  records  "that  one 
Rosseter,  and  others,  having  obtained  license  under 
the  Great  Seal  of  England  for  the  building  of  a 
playhouse,  have  pulled  down  [i.e.,  stripped  the  in- 
terior of]  a  great  messuage  in  Puddlewharf,  which 
was  sometimes  the  house  of  the  Lady  Saunders, 
within  the  precinct  of  the  Blackfriars,  and  are  now 
erecting  a  new  playhouse  in  that  place."  2 

The  city  authorities,  always  hostile  to  the  actors 
and  jealous  of  any  new  theatres,  made  so  vigorous  a 
complaint  to  the  Privy  Council  that  the  Lords  of 
the  Council  "thought  fit  to  send  for  Rosseter."  He 
came,  bringing  his  royal  license.  This  document 
was  carefully  "perused  by  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of 
England,"  who  succeeded  in  discovering  in  the 
wording  of  one  of  its  clauses  a  trivial  flaw  that 
would  enable  the  Privy  Council,  on  a  technicality, 
to  prohibit  the  building:  "The  Lord  Chief  Justice 
did   deliver  to   their   Lordships   that   the   license 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  277.        2  Ibid.,  p.  373. 


ROSSETER'S   BLACKFRIARS        345 

granted  to  the  said  Rosseter  did  extend  to  the 
building  of  a  playhouse  without  the  liberties  of 
London,  and  not  within  the  city."  '  Now,  in  1608 
the  liberty  of  Blackfriars  had  by  a  special  royal 
grant  been  placed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
city.  Rosseter's  license  unluckily  had  described 
the  Lady  Saunders's  house  as  being  "in  the  sub- 
urbs," though,  of  course,  the  description  was 
otherwise  specific  enough:  "all  which  premises  are 
situate  and  being  within  the  precinct  of  the  Black- 
friars, near  Puddlewharf,  in  the  suburbs  of  London, 
called  by  the  name  of  the  Lady  Saunders's  House, 
or  otherwise  Porter's  Hall." 

Since  "the  inconveniences  urged  by  the  Lord 
Mayor  and  Aldermen  were  many,"  the  Lords  of 
the  Privy  Council  decided  to  take  advantage  of 
the  flaw  discovered  by  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  and 
prohibit  the  erection  of  the  playhouse.  Their  order, 
issued  September  26,  161 5,  reads  as  follows: 

It  was  this  day  ordered  by  their  Lordships  that 
there  shall  be  no  playhouse  erected  in  that  place,  and 
that  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London  shall  straightly  pro- 
hibit the  said  Rosseter  and  the  rest  of  the  patentees, 
and  their  workmen  to  proceed  in  the  making  and 
converting  the  said  building  into  a  playhouse.  And  if 
any  of  the  patentees  or  their  workmen  shall  proceed 
in  their  intended  building  contrary  to  this  their 
Lordships'  inhibition,  that  then  the  Lord  Mayor  shall 
commit  him  or  them  so  offending  unto  prison  and  cer- 
tify their  Lordships  of  their  contempt  in  that  behalf.? 

1  The  A^alone  Society's  Collections,  I,  373.  '  Ibid. 


346     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

This  order,  for  the  time  being,  halted  work  on 
the  new  playhouse.  The  Children  of  the  Revels 
were  forced  to  spend  the  next  year  traveling  in  the 
provinces;  and  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  Men  and 
Prince  Charles's  Men  had  to  remain  on  the  Bank- 
side  and  endure  the  oppressions  of  Henslowe  and 
later  of  Meade.  Possibly  their  sufferings  at  the 
hands  of  Meade  led  them  to  urge  Rosseter  to  com- 
plete at  once  the  much  desired  house  in  the  city. 
At  any  rate,  in  the  winter  of  1616,  Rosseter,  believ- 
ing himself  strongly  enough  entrenched  behind  his 
royal  patent,  resumed  work  on  converting  Porter's 
Hall  into  a  theatre.  The  city  authorities  issued 
"diverse  commandments  and  prohibitions,"  but  he 
paid  no  attention  to  these,  and  pushed  the  work  to 
completion.  The  building  seems  to  have  been 
ready  for  the  actors  about  the  first  of  January, 
161 7.  Thereupon  the  company  which  had  been 
occupying  the  Hope  deserted  that  playhouse  and 
"came  over"  to  Rosseter's  Blackfriars.1  In  the 
new  playhouse  they  presented  Nathaniel  Field's 
comedy,  Amends  for  Ladies,  which  was  printed 
the  following  year  "as  it  was  acted  at  the  Black- 
friars both  by  the  Prince's  Servants  and  the  Lady 
Elizabeth's." 

The  actors,  however,  were  not  allowed  to  enjoy 
their  new  home  very  long.  On  January  27,  1617, 
the  Privy  Council  dispatched  the  following  letter 
to  the  Lord  Mayor: 

1  See  the  chapter  on  "The  Hope." 


ROSSETER'S   BLACKFRIARS        347 

Whereas  His  Majesty  is  informed  that  notwith- 
standing diverse  commandments  and  prohibitions  to 
the  contrary,  there  be  certain  persons  that  go  about 
to  set  up  a  playhouse  in  the  Blackfriars  near  unto  His 
Majesty's  Wardrobe,  and  for  that  purpose  have 
lately  erected  and  made  fit  a  building,  which  is  almost 
if  not  fully  finished.  You  shall  understand  that  His 
Majesty  hath  this  day  expressly  signified  his  pleasure 
that  the  same  shall  be  pulled  down,  so  as  it  be  made 
unfit  for  any  such  use;  whereof  we  require  your  Lord- 
ship to  take  notice  and  to  cause  it  to  be  performed 
accordingly,  with  all  speed,  and  thereupon  to  certify 
us  of  your  proceeding. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  an  order  so  peremp- 
tory, carrying  the  authority  both  of  the  Privy 
Council  and  of  the  King,  and  requiring  an  immedi- 
ate report,  was  performed  "with  all  speed."  After 
this  we  hear  nothing  more  of  the  playhouse  in 
Puddlewharf.1 

1  I  can  find  no  further  reference  to  the  Puddlewharf  Theatre 
either  in  the  Records  of  the  Privy  Council  or  in  the  Remembrancia 
of  the  City.  Collier,  however,  in  his  History  of  English  Dramatic 
Poetry  (1879),  1,  384,  says:  "The  city  authorities  proceeded  im- 
mediately to  the  work,  and  before  three  days  had  elapsed,  the 
Privy  Council  was  duly  and  formally  made  acquainted  with  the 
fact  that  Rosseter's  theatre  had  been  'made  unfit  for  any  such 
use'  as  that  for  which  it  had  been  constructed."  Collier  fails  to 
cite  his  authority  for  the  statement;  the  passage  he  quotes  may 
be  found  in  the  order  of  the  Privy  Council  printed  above. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
THE  PHOENIX,  OR  COCKPIT  IN   DRURY  LANE 

THE  private  playhouse  opened  in  Drury  Lane  1 
in  1617  seems  to  have  been  officially  named 
"The  Phoenix";  but  to  the  players  and  the  public 
alike  it  was  more  commonly  known  as  "The  Cock- 
pit." This  implies  some  earlier  connection  of  the 
site  or  of  the  building  with  cock-fighting,  from 
time  out  of  mind  a  favorite  sport  in  England. 
Stowe  writes  in  his  Survey:  "Cocks  of  the  game  are 
yet  cherished  by  diverse  men  for  their  pleasures, 
much  money  being  laid  on  their  heads,  when  they 
fight  in  pits,  whereof  some  be  costly  made  for  that 
purpose."  These  pits,  it  seems,  were  circular  in 
shape,  and  if  large  enough  might  well  be  used 
for  dramatic  purposes.  Shakespeare,  in  Henry  V 
(1599),  likens  his  playhouse  to  a  cockpit: 

1  Its  exact  position  in  Drury  Lane  is  indicated  by  an  order  of 
the  Privy  Council,  June  8,  1623,  concerning  the  paving  of  a  street 
at  the  rear  of  the  theatre:  "Whereas  the  highway  leading  along 
the  backside  of  the  Cockpit  Playhouse  near  Lincolns  Inn  Fields, 
and  the  street  called  Queens  Street  adjoining  to  the  same,  are 
become  very  foul,"  etc.  (See  The  Malone  Society  Collections,  1, 
383.  Queens  Street  may  be  readily  found  in  Faithorne's  Map  oj 
London.)  Malone  {Variorum,  III,  53)  states  that  "  it  was  situated 
opposite  the  Castle  Tavern."  The  site  is  said  to  be  marked  by 
Pit  Court. 


THE  PHCENIX  349 

Can  this  cockpit  hold 
The  vasty  fields  of  France?  or  may  we  cram 
Within  this  wooden  O  the  very  casques 
That  did  affright  the  air  at  Agincourt? 

It  is  possible,  then,  that  the  building  was  an  old 
cockpit  made  into  a  playhouse.  Howes,1  in  enu- 
merating the  London  theatres,  says:  "Five  inns  or 
common  hostelries  turned  into  playhouses,  one 
cockpit,  St.  Paul's  singing-school,"  etc.  And 
Thomas  Randolph,  in  verses  prefixed  to  James 
Shirley's  Grateful  Servant  (printed  in  1630  as  it 
was  acted  "in  the  private  house  in  Drury  Lane"), 
suggests  the  same  metamorphosis: 

When  thy  intelligence  on  the  Cockpit  stage 

Gives  it  a  soul  from  her  immortal  rage, 

I  hear  the  Muse's  birds  with  full  delight 

Sing  where  the  birds  of  Mars  were  wont  to  fight. 

But  in  this  fantastic  conceit  Randolph  may  have 
been  thinking  simply  of  the  name  of  the  theatre; 
possibly  he  knew  nothing  of  its  early  history.  On 
the  whole  it  seems  more  likely  that  the  playhouse 
was  newly  erected  in  161 7  upon  the  site  of  an  old 
cockpit.  The  name  "Phoenix"  suggests  that  pos- 
sibly the  old  cockpit  had  been  destroyed  by  fire, 
and  that  from  its  ashes  had  arisen  a  new  building.2 

1  Stow's  dnnals  (163 1),  p.  1004. 

*  Some  scholars  have  supposed  that  the  playhouse,  when  at- 
tacked by  the  apprentices  in  161 7,  was  burned,  and  that  the  name 
"Phoenix"  was  given  to  the  building  after  its  reconstruction. 
But  the  building  was  not  burned;  it  was  merely  wrecked  on  the 
inside  by  apprentices. 


350     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Howes  describes  the  Phcenix  as  being  in  1617  "a 
new  playhouse,"  l  and  Camden,  who  is  usually 
accurate  in  such  matters,  refers  to  it  in  the  same 
year  as  "nuper  erectum."  2 

Of  its  size  and  shape  all  our  information  comes 
from  James  Wright,  who  in  his  Historia  Histri- 
onica  3  tells  us  that  the  Cockpit  differed  in  no  essen- 
tial feature  from  Blackfriars  and  Salisbury  Court, 
"for  they  were  all  three  built  almost  exactly  alike 
for  form  and  bigness."  Since  we  know  that  Black- 
friars and  Salisbury  Court  were  small  rectangular 
theatres,  the  former  constructed  in  a  hall  forty-six 
feet  broad  and  sixty-six  feet  long,  the  latter  erected 
on  a  plot  of  ground  forty-two  feet  broad  and  one 
hundred  and  forty  feet  long,  we  are  not  left  entirely 
ignorant  of  the  shape  and  the  approximate  size  of 
the  Cockpit.4  And  from  Middleton's  Inner  Temple 
Masque  (1618)  we  learn  that  it  was  constructed  of 
brick.  Its  sign,  presumably,  was  that  of  a  phcenix 
rising  out  of  flames. 

The  playhouse  was  erected  and  managed  by 
Christopher  Beeston,6  one  of  the  most  important 

1  Continuation  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1),  p.  1026. 

2  William  Camden,  Annals,  under  the  date  of  March  4,  161 7. 
Yet  Sir  Sidney  Lee  {A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare,  p.  60)  says, 
"built  about  1610." 

3  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  xv,  408. 

*  Fleay  and  Lawrence  are  wrong  in  supposing  that  the  Cockpit 
was  circular. 

6  Alias  Christopher  Hutchinson.  Several  actors  of  the  day 
employed  aliases  :  Nicholas  Wilkinson,  alias  Tooley;  Theophilus 
Bourne,  alias  Bird;  James  Dunstan,  alias  Tunstall,  etc.  Whether 


W  "2 
Z    § 

<   >-) 


-  = 

fc  o 

-1  « 

H  E 

PL)  ^ 

u 

o  ^ 

u  s 

w  u 

h  -a 


u 

u 

w 

>. 

r/i 

^ 

w 

i 

r: 

B 

THE   PHCENIX  351 

actors  and  theatrical  managers  of  the  Elizabethan 
period.  We  first  hear  of  him  as  a  member  of 
Shakespeare's  troupe.  In  1602  he  joined  Worces- 
ter's Company.  In  1612  he  became  the  manager 
of  Queen  Anne's  Company  at  the  Red  Bull.  He 
is  described  at  that  time  as  "a  thriving  man,  and 
one  that  was  of  ability  and  means."  *  He  continued 
as  manager  of  the  Queen  Anne's  Men  at  the  Red 
Bull  until  161 7,  when  he  transferred  them  to  his 
new  playhouse  in  Drury  Lane. 

The  playhouse  seems  to  have  been  ready  to  re- 
ceive the  players  about  the  end  of  February,  1617. 
We  know  that  they  were  still  performing  at  the 
Red  Bull  as  late  as  February  23 ; 2  but  by  March  4 
they  had  certainly  moved  to  the  Cockpit. 

On  the  latter  date,  during  the  performance  of  a 
play,  the  Cockpit  was  entered  by  a  mob  of  disor- 
derly persons,  who  proceeded  to  demolish  the  in- 
terior. The  occasion  for  the  wrecking  of  the  new 
playhouse  was  the  Shrove  Tuesday  saturnalia  of 

Beeston  admitted  other  persons  to  a  share  in  the  building  I  cannot 
learn.  In  a  passage  quoted  by  Malone  {Variorum,  in,  121)  from 
the  Herbert  Manuscript,  dated  February  20,  1635,  there  is  a  ref- 
erence to  "  housekeepers,"  indicating  that  Beeston  had  then  ad- 
mitted "  sharers"  in  the  proprietorship  of  the  building.  And  in  an 
order  of  the  Privy  Council,  May  12,  1637  (The  Malone  Society's 
Collections,  1,  392),  we  read:  "  Command  the  keepers  of  the  play- 
house called  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane,  who  either  live  in  it  or 
have  relation  to  it,  not  to  permit  plays  to  be  acted  there  till  fur- 
ther order." 

1  Wallace,  Three  London  Theatres,  p.  35. 

2  Wallace,  ibid.,  pp.  32,  46.  John  Smith  was  delivering  silk 
and  other  clothes  to  the  Queen  Anne's  Men  at  the  Red  Bull  from 
1612  until  February  23,  1617. 


352     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

the  London  apprentices,  who  from  time  imme- 
morial had  employed  this  holiday  to  pull  down 
houses  of  ill-fame  in  the  suburbs.  That  the  Cockpit 
was  situated  in  the  neighborhood  of  such  houses 
cannot  be  doubted.  We  may  suppose  that  the  mob, 
fresh  from  sacking  buildings,  had  crowded  into  the 
playhouse  in  the  afternoon,  and  before  the  play 
was  over  had  wrecked  that  building  too. 

The  event  created  a  great  stir  at  the  time.  Wil- 
liam Camden,  in  his  Annals,  wrote  under  the  date 
of  March  4,  1617: 

Theatrum  ludiorum,  nuper  erectum  in  Drury  Lane, 
a  furente  multitudine  diruitur,  et  apparatus  dilacer- 
atur. 

Howes,  in  his  continuation  of  Stow's  Annals, 
writes : 

Shrove-Tuesday,  the  fourth  of  March,  many  dis- 
ordered persons  of  sundry  kinds,  amongst  whom  were 
very  many  young  boys  and  lads,  that  assembled  them- 
selves in  Lincolnes  Inn  Field,  Finsbury  Field,  in  Rat- 
cliffe,  and  Stepney  Field,  where  in  riotous  manner 
they  did  beat  down  the  walls  and  windows  of  many 
victualing  houses  and  of  all  other  houses  which  they 
suspected  to  be  bawdy  houses.  And  that  afternoon 
they  spoiled  a  new  playhouse,  and  did  likewise  more 
hurt  in  diverse  other  places.1 

That  several  persons  were  killed,  and  many  in- 
jured, is  disclosed  by  a  letter  from  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil to  the  Lord  Mayor,  dated  March  5,  1617: 

1  Annals  (163 1),  p.  1026. 


THE   PHCENIX  353 

It  is  not  unknown  unto  you  what  tumultuous  out- 
rages were  yesterday  committed  near  unto  the  city 
of  London  in  diverse  places  by  a  rowt  of  lewd  and 
loose  persons,  apprentices  and  others,  especially  in 
Lincolns  Inn  Fields  and  Drury  Lane,  where  in  at- 
tempting to  pull  down  a  playhouse  belonging  to  the 
Queen's  Majesty's  Servants,  there  were  diverse  per- 
sons slain,  and  others  hurt  and  wounded,  the  multi- 
tude there  assembled  being  to  the  number  of  many 
thousands,  as  we  are  credibly  informed.1 

The  Queen's  Men  returned  to  the  Red  Bull  and 
acted  there  until  their  ruined  playhouse  could  be 
repaired.  Three  months  later,  on  June  3,  they 
again  occupied  the  Cockpit,2  and  continued  there 
until  the  death  of  Queen  Anne  on  March  2,  1619.3 

This  event  led  to  the  dissolution  of  the  company. 

1  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  I,  374.  Collier,  in  The 
History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  1,  386,  prints  a  long 
ballad  on  the  event;  but  he  does  not  give  its  source,  and  its 
genuineness  has  been  questioned.  The  following  year  threats  to 
pull  down  the  Fortune,  the  Red  Bull,  and  the  Cockpit  led  to  the 
setting  of  special  watches.    See  The  Malone  Society's  Collections, 

h  377- 

2  Greenstreet,  Documents,  The  New  Shakspere  Society's  Trans- 
actions (1880-86),  p.  504. 

3  Mr.  Wallace  (Three  London  Theatres,  p.  29)  says  that  the 
documents  he  prints  make  it  "as  certain  as  circumstances  un- 
supported by  contemporary  declaration  can  make  it,  that  Queen 
Anne's  company  occupied  the  Red  Bull  continuously  from  the 
time  of  its  erection  .  .  .  till  their  dissolution,  1619."  His  docu- 
ments make  it  certain  only  that  Queen  Anne's  Men  occupied  the 
Red  Bull  until  February  23,  161 7.  Other  documents  prove  that 
they  occupied  the  Cockpit  from  1617  until  1619.  (Note  the  letter 
of  the  Privy  Council  quoted  above.)  The  documents  printed  by 
Greenstreet  show  that  Queen  Anne's  Men  moved  to  the  Cockpit 
on  June  3,  1 61 7,  and  continued  there. 


354     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

For  a  year  or  more  its  members  had  been  "falling 
at  variance  and  strife  amongst  themselves,"  and 
when  the  death  of  the  Queen  deprived  them  of  a 
"service,"  they  "separated  and  divided  themselves 
into  other  companies."  l  As  a  result  of  the  quarrels 
certain  members  of  the  company  made  charges 
against  their  former  manager,  Beeston:  "The  said 
Beeston  having  from  the  beginning  a  greater  care 
for  his  own  private  gain,  and  not  respecting  the 
good  of  these  defendants  and  the  rest  of  his  fellows 
and  companions,  hath  in  the  place  and  trust  afore- 
said much  enriched  himself,  and  hath  of  late  given 
over  his  coat  and  condition,2  and  separated  and 
divided  himself  from  these  defendants,  carrying 
away  not  only  all  the  furniture  and  apparel,"  etc.3 
The  charges  against  Beeston's  honesty  may  be  dis- 
missed; but  it  seems  clear  that  he  had  withdrawn 
from  his  former  companions,  and  was  preparing  to 
entertain  a  new  troupe  of  actors  at  his  playhouse. 
And  Beeston  himself  tells  us,  on  November  23, 
1619,  that  "after  Her  Majesty's  decease,  he  entered 
into  the  service  of  the  most  noble  Prince  Charles."  4 
Thus  Prince  Charles's  Men,  after  their  unfortunate 

1  Wallace,  Three  London  Theatres,  p.  33. 

1  He  had  joined  Prince  Charles's  Men. 

5  Wallace,  Three  London  Theatres,  p.  38. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  40.  Fleay,  Murray,  and  others  have  contended  that 
the  Princess  Elizabeth's  Men  came  to  the  Cockpit  in  1619,  and 
have  denied  the  accuracy  of  the  title-page  of  The  Witch  oj  Edmon- 
ton (1658),  which  declares  that  play  to  have  been  "acted  by  the 
Prince's  Servants  at  the  Cockpit  often."  (See  Fleay,  A  Chronicle 
History  of  the  London  Stage,  p.  299.) 


THE   PHCENIX  355 

experiences  at  the  Hope  and  at  Rosseter's  Black- 
friars,  came  to  Beeston's  playhouse,  where  they 
remained  until  1622.  In  the  spring  of  that  year, 
however,  they  moved  to  the  Curtain,  and  the 
Princess  Elizabeth's  Men  occupied  the  Cockpit.1 
Under  their  tenancy,  the  playhouse  seems  to  have 
attained  an  enviable  reputation.  Heminges  and 
Condell,  in  the  epistle  to  the  readers,  prefixed  to 
the  Folio  of  Shakespeare  (1623),  bear  testimony  to 
this  in  the  following  terms:  "And  though  you  be  a 
Magistrate  of  Wit,  and  sit  on  the  stage  at  Black- 
friars,  or  the  Cockpit,  to  arraign  plays  daily."  A 
further  indication  of  their  prosperity  is  to  be  found 
in  the  records  of  St.  Giles's  Church;  for  when  in 
1623  the  parish  undertook  the  erection  of  a  new 
church  building,  "the  players  of  the  Cockpit,"  we 
are  informed,  contributed  the  large  sum  of  £20, 
and  the  proprietors,  represented  by  Christopher 
Beeston,  gave  £19  is.  $d.2 

The  Princess  Elizabeth's  Men  continued  to  act 
at  the  Cockpit  until  May,  1625,  when  all  theatres 
were  closed  on  account  of  the  plague.  Beeston 
made  this  the  occasion  to  organize  a  new  company 
called  "Queen  Henrietta's  Men";  and  when  the 
theatres  were  allowed  to  reopen,  about  December, 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  59. 

2  John  Parton,  Some  Account  of  the  Hospital  and  Parish  of 
St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  p.  235.  From  a  parish  entry  in  1660  we 
learn  that  the  players  had  to  contribute  2d.  to  the  parish  poor 
for  each  day  that  there  was  acting  at  the  Cockpit.  (See  ibid., 
p.  236.) 


356     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

1625, 1  this  new  company  was  in  possession  of  the 
Cockpit.  But  the  reputation  of  the  playhouse 
seems  not  to  have  been  enhanced  by  the  perform- 
ances of  this  troupe.  In  1629,  Lenton,  in  The  Young 
Gallant's  Whirligig,  writes  sneeringly: 

The  Cockpit  heretofore  would  serve  his  wit, 
But  now  upon  the  Friars'  Stage  he'll  sit. 

And  in  the  following  year,  1630,  Thomas  Carew  in 
verses  prefixed  to  Davenport's  Just  Italian,  attacks 
the  Red  Bull  and  the  Cockpit  as  "adulterate" 
stages  where  "noise  prevails,"  and  "not  a  tongue 
of  th'  untun'd  kennel  can  a  line  repeat  of  serious 
sense."  Queen  Henrietta's  Men  probably  con- 
tinued to  occupy  the  building  until  May  12,  1636, 
when  the  theatres  were  again  closed  on  account  of 
a  serious  outbreak  of  the  plague.  The  plague  con- 
tinued for  nearly  a  year  and  a  half,  and  during  this 
time  the  company  was  dissolved.2 

Before  the  plague  had  ceased,  early  in   1637, 

1  In  the  Middlesex  County  Records,  III,  6,  we  find  that  on  De- 
cember 6,  1625,  because  "  the  drawing  of  people  together  to  places 
was  a  great  means  of  spreading  and  continuing  the  infection  .  .  . 
this  Court  doth  prohibit  the  players  of  the  house  at  the  Cockpit, 
being  next  to  His  Majesty's  Court  at  Whitehall,  commanding 
them  to  surcease  all  such  their  proceedings  until  His  Majesty's 
pleasure  be  further  signified."  Apparently  the  playhouses  in 
general  had  been  allowed  to  resume  performances;  and  since  by 
December  24  there  had  been  no  deaths  from  the  plague  for  a 
week,  the  special  inhibition  of  the  Cockpit  Playhouse  was  soon 
lifted. 

*  "When  Her  Majesty's  Servants  were  at  the  Cockpit,  being 
all  at  liberty,  they  dispersed  themselves  to  several  companies." 
(Heton's  Patent,  1639,  The  Shakespeare  Society  Papers,  iv,  96.) 


THE   PHCENIX  357 

"Mr.  Beeston  was  commanded  to  make  a  company 
of  boys."  *  In  the  Office-Book  of  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain we  find,  under  the  date  of  February  21, 
1637:  "Warrant  to  swear  Mr.  Christopher  Beeston 
His  Majesty's  Servant  in  the  place  of  Governor 
of  the  new  company  of  The  King's  and  Queen's 
Boys."  2  The  first  recorded  performance  by  this 
new  company  was  at  Court  on  February  7,  1637.3 
On  February  23,  the  number  of  deaths  from  the 
plague  having  diminished,  acting  was  again  per- 
mitted; but  at  the  expiration  of  one  week,  on  March 
2,  the  number  of  deaths  having  increased,  all  play- 
houses were  again  closed.  During  this  single  week 
the  King's  and  Queen's  Boys,  we  may  suppose, 
acted  at  the  Cockpit.4 

On  May  12,  Beeston  was  arrested  and  brought 
before  the  Privy  Council  for  having  allowed  his 
Boys  to  act  a  play  at  the  Cockpit  during  the 
inhibition.5  In  his  apology  he  explains  this  as  fol- 
lows: "Petitioner  being  commanded  to  erect  and 
prepare  a  company  of  young  actors  for  Their 
Majesties's  service,  and  being  desirous  to  know 
how  they  profited  by  his  instructions,  invited  some 

1  Herbert  Manuscript,  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  240. 

2  Stopes,  "  Shakespeare's  Fellows  and  Followers,"  Shakespeare 
Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  99.  In  1639  Heton  applied  for  a  patent  as  "  Gov- 
ernor" of  the  company  at  Salisbury  Court. 

3  On  May  10  Beeston  was  paid  for  "  two  plays  acted  by  the 
New  Company."  See  Stopes,  "  Shakespeare's  Fellows  and  Fol- 
lowers," in  the  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  99. 

4  Herbert  Manuscript,  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  240. 
s  The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  392. 


358     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

noblemen  and  gentlemen  to  see  them  act  at  his 
house,  the  Cockpit.  For  which,  since  he  perceives 
it  is  imputed  as  a  fault,  he  is  very  sorry,  and  craves 
pardon."  1 

On  September  17,  1637,  "  Christopher  Beeston, 
His  Majesty's  servant,  by  petition  to  the  Board, 
showed  that  he  hath  many  young  actors  lying  un- 
practised by  reason  of  the  restraint  occasioned  by 
infection  of  the  plague,  whereby  they  are  much 
disabled  to  perform  their  service,  and  besought 
that  they  might  have  leave  to  practise.  It  was 
ordered  that  Beeston  should  be  at  liberty  to  prac- 
tise his  actors  at  Michaelmas  next  [September  29], 
if  there  be  no  considerable  increase  of  the  sickness, 
nor  that  there  die  more  than  died  last  week."  2 

On  October  2,  1637,  the  plague  having  abated, 
all  playhouses  were  opened,  and  the  King's  and 
Queen's  Boys,  Herbert  tells  us,  began  to  play  at 
the  Cockpit  "the  same  day."  3  Here,  under  the 
popular  name  of  "Beeston's  Boys,"  they  enjoyed 
a  long  and  successful  career,  which  ended  only 
with  the  prohibition  of  acting  in  1642. 

In  1639  Christopher  Beeston  died,  and  the  posi- 
tion of  Governor  of  the  Boys  was  conferred  upon 
his  son,  William  Beeston,  who  had  long  been  asso- 
ciated in  the  management  of  the  company,4  and 
who,  if  we  may  believe  Francis  Kirkman,  was  ad- 

1  The  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1636- 1637,  p.  254. 
1  Ibid.,  1637,  p.  420.  *  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  240. 

4  He  is  referred  to  as  their  Governor  on  August  10,  1639;  see 
Malone,  Variorum,  in,  159. 


THE   PHCENIX  359 

mirably  qualified  for  the  position.  In  dedicating 
to  him  The  Loves  and  Adventures  of  Clerico  and 
Lozia,  Kirkman  says: 

Divers  times  in  my  hearing,  to  the  admiration  of 
the  whole  company,  you  have  most  judiciously  dis- 
coursed of  Poesie:  which  is  the  cause  I  presume  to 
choose  you  for  my  patron  and  protector,  who  are  the 
happiest  interpreter  and  judge  of  our  English  stage- 
plays  this  nation  ever  produced;  which  the  poets  and 
actors  of  these  times  cannot  (without  ingratitude) 
deny;  for  I  have  heard  the  chief  and  most  ingenious 
acknowledge  their  fames  and  profits  essentially 
sprung  from  your  instruction,  judgment,  and  fancy. 

But  in  spite  of  all  this,  William  Beeston's  career  as 
Governor  was  of  short  duration.  About  the  first 
of  May,  1640,  he  allowed  the  Boys  to  act  without 
license  a  play  that  gave  great  offense  to  the  King. 
Herbert,  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  writes  of  this 
play  that  it  "had  relation  to  the  passages  of  the 
King's  journey  into  the  north,  and  was  complained  of 
by  His  Majesty  to  me,  with  command  to  punish  the 
offenders."  1  In  the  Office-Book  of  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain, under  the  date  of  May  3,  1640,  we  read: 

Whereas  William  Beeston  and  the  company  of  the 
players  of  the  Cockpit,  in  Drury  Lane,  have  lately 
acted  a  new  play  without  any  license  from  the  Master 
of  His  Majesty's  Revels,  and  being  commanded  to 
forbear  playing  or  acting  of  the  same  play  by  the  said 
Master  of  the  Revels,  and  commanded  likewise  to 
forbear  all  manner  of  playing,  have  notwithstanding, 

8  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  241. 


360     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

in  contempt  of  the  authority  of  the  said  Master  of  the 
Revels,  and  the  power  granted  unto  him  under  the 
Great  Seal  of  England,  acted  the  said  play,  and  others, 
to  the  prejudice  of  His  Majesty's  service,  and  in  con- 
tempt of  the  Office  of  the  Revels,  [whereby]  he  and 
they  and  all  other  companies  ever  have  been  and 
ought  to  be  governed  and  regulated:  These  are  there- 
fore in  His  Majesty's  name,  and  signification  of  his 
royal  pleasure,  to  command  the  said  William  Beeston 
and  the  rest  of  that  company  of  the  Cockpit  players 
from  henceforth  and  upon  sight  hereof,  to  forbear  to 
act  any  plays  whatsoever  until  they  shall  be  restored 
by  the  said  Master  of  the  Revels  unto  their  former 
liberty.  Whereof  all  parties  concernable  are  to  take 
notice,  and  conform  accordingly,  as  they  and  every 
one  of  them  will  answer  it  at  their  peril.1 

Herbert  records  in  his  Office-Book: 

On  Monday  the  4  May,  1640,  William  Beeston  was 
taken  by  a  messenger  and  committed  to  the  Marshal- 
sea  by  my  Lord  Chamberlain's  warrant,  for  playing  a 
play  without  license.  The  same  day  the  company  at 
the  Cockpit  was  commanded  by  my  Lord  Chamber- 
lain's warrant  to  forbear  playing,  for  playing  when 
they  were  forbidden  by  me,  and  for  other  disobe- 
dience, and  lay  still  Monday,  Tuesday,  and  Wednes- 
day. On  Thursday,  at  my  Lord  Chamberlain's  en- 
treaty, I  gave  them  their  liberty,  and  upon  their 
petition  of  submission  subscribed  by  the  players,  I 
restored  them  to  their  liberty  on  Thursday.2 

1  Collier,  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  II,  32; 
Stopes,  op.  cit.,  p.  102. 

2  Malone,  Variorum,  ill,  241.  Herbert  did  not  forget  Beeston's 
insubordination,  and  in  1660,  in  issuing  to  Beeston  a  license  to 
use  the  Salisbury  Court  Playhouse,  he  inserted  clauses  to  prevent 
further  difficulty  of  this  kind  (see  Variorum,  in,  243). 


THE   PHCENIX  361 

To  this  period  of  Beeston's  imprisonment  I 
should  refer  the  puzzling  Epilogue  of  Brome's  The 
Court  Beggar: 

There's  wit  in  that  now.  But  this  small  Poet  vents 
none  but  his  own,  and  his  by  whose  care  and  direc- 
tions this  Stage  is  govern'd,  who  has  for  many  years, 
both  in  his  father's  days,  and  since,  directed  Poets  to 
write  and  Players  to  speak,  till  he  trained  up  these 
youths  here  to  what  they  are  now.  Aye,  some  of  'em 
from  before  they  were  able  to  say  a  grace  of  two  lines 
long  to  have  more  parts  in  their  pates  than  would 
fill  so  many  Dry-vats.  And  to  be  serious  with  you, 
if  after  all  this,  by  the  venomous  practice  of  some, 
who  study  nothing  more  than  his  destruction,  he 
should  fail  us,  both  Poets  and  Players  would  be  at 
loss  in  reputation. 

His  "destruction"  was  wrought,  nevertheless,  for 
as  a  result  of  his  indiscretion  he  was  deposed  from 
his  position  as  Governor  of  the  King's  and  Queen's 
Company,  and  William  Davenant  was  appointed 
in  his  place.  In  the  Office-Book  of  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain under  the  date  of  June  27,  1640,1  appears 
the  following  entry  with  the  heading,  "Mr.  Dav- 
enant Governor  of  the  Cockpit  Players": 

Whereas  in  the  playhouse  or  theatre  commonly 
called  the  Cockpit,  in  Drury  Lane,  there  are  a  com- 
pany of  players  authorized  by  me  (as  Lord  Chamber- 
lain to  His  Majesty)  to  play  or  act  under  the  title  of 
The  King's  and  Queen's  Servants,  and  that  by  reason 
of  some  disorders  lately  amongst  them  committed 

1  Stopes  (op.  cit.)  dates  this  June  5,  but  Collier,  Malone,  and 
Chalmers  all  give  June  27,  and  Mrs.  Stopes  is  not  always  quite 
accurate  in  such  matters. 


362     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

they  are  disabled  in  their  service  and  quality:  These 
arc  therefore  to  signify  that  by  the  same  authority 
I  do  authorize  and  appoint  William  Davcnant,  Gent., 
one  of  Her  Majesty's  servants,  for  me  and  in  my 
name  to  take  into  his  government  and  care  the  said 
company  of  players,  to  govern,  order,  and  dispose  of 
them  for  action  and  presentments,  and  all  their  affairs 
in  the  said  house,  as  in  his  discretion  shall  seem  best 
to  conduce  to  His  Majesty's  service  in  that  quality. 
And  I  do  hereby  enjoin  and  command  them,  all  and 
every  of  them,  that  are  so  authorized  to  play  in  the 
said  house  under  the  privilege  of  His  or  Her  Majesty's 
Servants,  and  every  one  belonging  as  prentices  or 
servants  to  those  actors  to  play  under  the  same  priv- 
ilege, that  they  obey  the  said  Mr.  Davenant  and  fol- 
low his  orders  and  directions,  as  they  will  answer  the 
contrary;  which  power  and  privilege  he  is  to  continue 
and  enjoy  during  that  lease  which  Mrs.  Elizabeth 
Beeston,  alias  Hucheson,  hath  or  doth  hold  in  the 
said  playhouse,  provided  he  be  still  accountable  to 
me  for  his  care  and  well  ordering  the  said  company.1 

Under  the  direction  of  Davenant  the  company 
acted  at  the  Cockpit  until  the  closing  of  the  the- 
atres two  years  later. 

The  history  of  the  playhouse  during  the  troubled 
years  that  followed  is  varied.  In  the  churchwarden's 
account  of  St.  Giles's  Parish  is  found  the  entry: 
"  1646.  Paid  and  given  to  the  teacher  at  the  Cock- 
pit of  the  children,  6^."  2  Apparently  the  old  play- 
house was  then  being  temporarily  used  as  a  school. 

1  Collier,  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  11,  32, 
note  1. 

*  John  Parton,  Some  Account  of  the  Hospital  and  Parish  of  St. 
Giles  in  the  Fields,  p.  235. 


THE   PHCENIX  363 

Wright,  in  his  Historia  Histrionica,  tells  us  that 
at  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war  most  of  the  actors 
had  joined  the  royal  army  and  served  His  Majesty, 
"though  in  a  different,  yet  more  honorable  capac- 
ity." Some  were  killed,  many  won  distinction;  and 
"when  the  wars  were  over,  and  the  royalists  totally 
subdued,  most  of  'em  who  were  left  alive  gathered 
to  London,  and  for  a  subsistence  endeavored  to 
revive  their  old  trade  privately.  They  made  up  one 
company  out  of  all  the  scattered  members  of  sev- 
eral, and  in  the  winter  before  the  King's  murder, 
1648,  they  ventured  to  act  some  plays,  with  as 
much  caution  and  privacy  as  could  be,  at  the  Cock- 
pit." John  Evelyn  records  in  his  Diary,  under  the 
date  of  February  5, 1648 : "  Saw  a  tragicomedy  acted 
in  the  Cockpit  after  there  had  been  none  of  these 
diversions  for  many  years  during  the  war."  Trou- 
ble, however,  was  brewing  for  these  daring  actors. 
As  Wright  records:  "They  continued  undisturbed 
for  three  or  four  days,  but  at  last,  as  they  were 
presenting  the  tragedy  of  The  Bloody  Brother  (in 
which  Lowin  acted  Aubery;  Taylor,  Rollo;  Pollard, 
the  Cook;  Burt,  Latorch;  and,  I  think,  Hart,  Otto), 
a  party  of  foot-soldiers  beset  the  house,  surprised 
'em  about  the  middle  of  the  play,  and  carried  'em 
away  in  their  habits,  not  admitting  them  to  shift, 
to  Hatton  House,  then  a  prison,  where,  having  de- 
tained them  some  time,  they  plundered  them  of 
their  clothes,  and  let  'em  loose  again."  l 

1  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  xv,  409. 


364     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

In  1649  the  interior  of  the  building  was  sacked,  if 
we  may  trust  the  manuscript  note  entered  in  the 
Phillipps  copy  of  Stow's  Annals  (163 1) :  "The  play- 
house in  Salisbury  Court,  in  Fleet  Street,  was  pulled 
down  by  a  company  of  soldiers  set  on  by  the  sec- 
taries of  these  sad  times,  on  Saturday  the  24  day  of 
March,  1649.  The  Phoenix,  in  Drury  Lane,  was 
pulled  down  also  this  day,  being  Saturday  the  24 
day  of  March,  1649,  by  the  same  soldiers."  ■  In  the 
passage  quoted,  "pulled-down"  merely  means  that 
the  stage  and  its  equipment,  and  possibly  a  part  of 
the  galleries  and  the  seats,  were  wrecked,  not  that 
the  walls  of  the  building  itself  were  thrown  down. 

In  1656  Sir  William  Davenant  undertook  to  cre- 
ate a  form  of  dramatic  entertainment  which  would 
be  tolerated  by  the  authorities.  The  Lord  Protec- 
tor was  known  to  be  a  lover  of  music.  Sir  William, 
therefore,  applied  for  permission  to  give  operatic 
entertainments,  "after  the  manner  of  the  an- 
tients,"  the  "story  sung  in  recitative  music,"  and 
the  representation  made  "by  the  art  of  perspective 
in  scenes."  To  such  entertainments,  he  thought, 
no  one  could  object.  He  was  wise  enough  to  give 
his  first  performances  at  Rutland  House;  but  in 
1658  he  moved  to  the  Cockpit,  where,  says  Aubrey, 
"were  acted  very  well,  stylo  recitativo,  Sir  Francis 
Drake  and  The  Siege  of  Rhodes  (1st  and  2d  parts). 

1  See  The  Academy,  October  28,  1882,  p.  314.  The  soldiers  here 
mentioned  also  "pulled  down  on  the  inside"  the  Fortune  play- 
house. 


THE   PHCENIX  36$ 

It  did  affect  the  eye  and  ear  extremely.  This  first 
brought  scenes  in  fashion  in  England;  before  at 
plays  was  only  a  hanging."  Thus  the  Cockpit  had 
the  distinction  of  being  the  first  English  playhouse 
in  which  scenery  was  employed,  and,  one  should 
add,  the  first  English  home  of  the  opera.1 

Later  in  the  same  year,  1658,  Davenant  exhib- 
ited at  the  Cockpit  The  Cruelty  of  the  Spaniards  in 
Peru;  but  this  performance  excited  the  suspicion 
of  the  authorities,  who  on  December  23  sent  for 
"the  poet  and  the  actors"  to  explain  "by  what 
authority  the  same  is  exposed  to  public  view." 2 

"In  the  year  1659,"  writes  John  Downes  in  his 
Roscius  Anglicanus,  "General  Monk  marching 
then  his  army  out  of  Scotland  to  London,  Mr. 
Rhodes,  a  bookseller,  being  wardrobe-keeper  for- 
merly (as  I  am  informed)  to  King  Charles  the 
First's  company  of  commedians  in  Blackfriars, 
getting  a  license  from  the  then  governing  state,3 
fitted  up  a  house  then  for  acting,  called  the  Cock- 
pit,  in  Drury  Lane,  and  in  a  short  time  completed 
his  company."  If  this  statement  is  correct,  the 
time  must  have  been  early  in  the  year  1659-60, 
and  the  company  must  have  attempted  at  first  to 
play  without  a  proper  license.   From  the  Middlesex 

1  For  a  discussion  of  Davenant's  attempts  to  introduce  the 
opera  into  England,  see  W.  J.  Lawrence,  The  Elizabethan  Play- 
house (Second  Series),  pp.  129  ff. 

2  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  93;  Collier,  The  History  of  English 
Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  n,  48. 

3  For  his  troubles  with  the  Master  of  the  Revels  see  Halliwell- 
Phillipps,  A  Collection  of  Ancient  Documents,  p.  26. 


366     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

County  Records  (in,  282),  we  learn  that  one  of  their 
important  actors,  Thomas  Lilleston,  was  held  un- 
der bond  for  having  performed  "a  public  stage- 
play  this  present  4th  of  February  [1659-60]  in  the 
Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane  in  the  parish  of  St.  Giles-in- 
the-Fields,  contrary  to  the  law  in  that  case  made"; 
and  in  the  Parish  Book  1  of  St.  Giles  we  find  the 
entry:  "1659.  Received  of  Isack  Smith,  which  he 
received  at  the  Cockpit  playhouse  of  several  of- 
fenders, by  order  of  the  justices,  £3  Ss.  6d" 
Shortly  after  this,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  the  com- 
pany under  Rhodes's  management  secured  the 
"license  of  the  then  governing  state"  mentioned 
by  Downes,  and  continued  thereafter  without 
interruption.  The  star  of  this  company  was  Bet- 
terton,  whose  splendid  acting  at  once  captivated 
London.  Pepys  went  often  to  the  theatre,  and  has 
left  us  some  interesting  notes  of  his  experiences 
there.   On  August  18,  1660,  he  writes: 

Captain  Ferrers,  my  Lord's  Cornet,  comes  to  us, 
who  after  dinner  took  me  and  Creed  to  the  Cockpit 
play,  the  first  that  I  have  had  time  to  see  since  my 
coming  from  sea,The  Loyall  Subject,  where  one  Kinas- 
ton,  a  boy,  acted  the  Duke's  sister,  but  made  the 
loveliest  lady  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life,  only  her 
voice  not  very  good. 

Again  on  October  II,  1660,  he  writes: 

Here  in  the  Park  we  met  with  Mr.  Salisbury,  who 
took  Mr.  Creed  and  me  to  the  Cockpit  to  see  The 

1  Parton,  op.  cit.,  p.  236. 


THE   PHCENIX  367 

Moor  of  Venice,  which  was  well  done.  Burt  acted  the 
Moor,  by  the  same  token  a  very  pretty  lady  that  sat 
by  me  called  out  to  see  Desdemona  smothered. 

The  subsequent  history  of  the  Cockpit  falls  out- 
side the  scope  of  the  present  treatise.  The  reader 
who  desires  to  trace  the  part  the  building  played 
in  the  Restoration  would  do  well  to  consult  the 
numerous  documents  printed  by  Malone  from 
the  Herbert  Manuscript.1 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  HI,  244  ff. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

SALISBURY  COURT 

THE  Salisbury  Court  Playhouse 1  was  pro- 
jected and  built  by  two  men  whose  very 
names  are  unfamiliar  to  most  students  of  the 
drama  —  Richard  Gunnell  and  William  Blagrove. 
Yet  Gunnell  was  a  distinguished  actor,  and  was 
associated  with  the  ownership  and  management  of 
at  least  two  theatres.  Even  so  early  as  1613  his 
reputation  as  a  player  was  sufficient  to  warrant  his 
inclusion  as  a  full  sharer  in  the  Palsgrave's  Com- 
pany, then  acting  at  the  Fortune.  When  the  For- 
tune was  rebuilt  after  its  destruction  by  fire  in 
1621,  he  purchased  one  of  the  twelve  shares  in  the 
new  building,  and  rose  to  be  manager  of  the  com- 
pany.2 In  addition  to  managing  the  company  he 
also,  as  we  learn  from  the  Herbert  Manuscript, 
supplied  the  actors  with  plays.  In  1623  he  com- 
posed The  Hungarian  Lion,  obviously  a  comedy, 
and  in  the  following  year  The  Way  to  Content  all 

1  The  playhouse  discussed  in  this  chapter  was  officially  known 
as  "The  Salisbury  Court  Playhouse,"  and  it  should  always  be  re- 
ferred to  by  that  name.  Unfortunately,  owing  to  its  situation 
near  the  district  of  Whitefriars,  it  was  sometimes  loosely,  though 
incorrectly,  called  "  Whitefriars."  Since  it  had  no  relation  what- 
ever to  the  theatre  formerly  in  the  Manor-House  of  Whitefriars,  a 
perpetuation  of  this  false  nomenclature  is  highly  undesirable. 

*  Malone,  Variorum,  ill,  66. 


SALISBURY   COURT  369 

Women,  or  How  a  Man  May  Please  his  Wife.1  Of 
William  Blagrove  I  can  learn  little  more  than  that 
he  was  Deputy  to  the  Master  of  the  Revels.  In  this 
capacity  he  signed  the  license  for  Glapthorne's 
Lady  Mother,  October  15,  1635;  and  his  name  ap- 
pears several  times  in  the  Herbert  Manuscript  in 
connection  with  the  payments  of  various  compa- 
nies.2 Possibly  he  was  related  to  Thomas  Blagrove 
who  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  was  an  important 
member  of  the  Revels  Office,  and  who  for  a  time 
served  as  Master  of  the  Revels. 

What  threw  these  two  men  together  in  a  theatri- 
cal partnership  we  do  not  know.  But  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1629  they  decided  to  build  a  private  play- 
house to  compete  with  the  successful  Blackfriars 
and  Cockpit;  and  for  this  purpose  they  leased  from 
the  Earl  of  Dorset  a  plot  of  ground  situated  to  the 
east  of  the  precinct  of  Whitefriars.  The  ground 
thus  leased  opened  on  Salisbury  Court;  hence  the 
name,  "The  Salisbury  Court  Playhouse."  In  the 
words  of  the  legal  document,  the  Earl  of  Dorset  "in 
consideration  that  Richard  Gunnell  and  William 

1  Chalmers's  Supplemental  Apology,  pp.  216-17.  He  may  also 
have  been  the  author  of  a  play  called  The  Masque,  which  Herbert 
in  1624  licensed:  "For  the  Palsgrave's  Company,  a  new  play 
called  The  Masque."  In  the  list  of  manuscript  plays  collected  by 
Warburton  we  find  the  title  A  Mask,  and  the  authorship  ascribed 
to  R.  Govell.  Since  "R.  Govell"  is  not  otherwise  heard  of,  we 
may  reasonably  suppose  that  this  was  Warburton's  reading  of 
"  R.  Gunell."  Gunnell  also  prefixed  a  poem  to  the  Works  of 
Captain  John  Smith,  1626. 

2  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  66,  122,  176,  177. 


370     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

Blagrove  should  at  their  costs  and  charges  erect  a 
playhouse  and  other  buildings  at  the  lower  end  of 
Salisbury  Court,  in  the  parish  of  St.  Bridges,  in  the 
ward  of  Farringdon  Without,  did  demise  to  the 
said  Gunnell  and  Blagrove  a  piece  of  ground  at  the 
same  lower  end  of  Salisbury  Court,  containing  one 
hundred  and  forty  foot  in  length  and  forty-two 
in  breadth  ...  for  forty-one  years  and  a  half." 
The  lease  was  signed  on  July  6,  1629.  Nine  days 
later,  on  July  15,  the  Earl  of  Dorset,  "in  considera- 
tion of  nine  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  paid  to  the 
said  late  Earl  by  John  Heme,  of  Lincoln's  Inn, 
Esquire,  did  demise  to  hire  the  said  piece  of  ground 
and  [the]  building  [i.e.,  the  playhouse]  thereupon  to 
be  erected,  and  the  rent  reserved  upon  the  said 
lease  made  to  Gunnell  and  Blagrove."  Heme's 
lease  was  for  a  term  of  sixty-one  years.  The  effect  of 
this  second  lease  was  merely  to  make  Heme,  instead 
of  the  Earl  of  Dorset,  the  landlord  of  the  players. 
The  plot  of  ground  selected  for  the  playhouse  is 
described  with  exactness  in  the  lease  printed  below. 
The  letters  inserted  in  brackets  refer  to  the  accom- 
panying diagram  (see  page  371): 

All  that  soil  and  ground  whereupon  the  Barn  [A], 
at  the  lower  end  of  the  great  back  court,  or  yard  of 
Salisbury  Court,  now  stands;  and  so  much  of  the  soil 
whereupon  the  whole  south  end  of  the  great  stable  in 
the  said  court  or  yard  stands,  or  contains,  from  that 
end  of  that  stable  towards  the  north  end  thereof  six- 
teen foot  of  assize,  and  the  whole  breadth  of  the  said 
stable  [B];  and  all  the  ground  and  soil  on  the  east  and 


SALISBURY   COURT 


37i 


west  side  of  that  stable  lying  directly  against  the  said 
sixteen  foot  of  ground  at  the  south  end  thereof  be- 
tween the  wall  of  the  great  garden  belonging  to  the 
mansion  called  Dorset  House  and  the  wall  that  severs 


z 

at 

I 


3al,isbury 
Court 


Z 
Q 

SI 

o 

en 

OS 
0 

Q 


A   PLAN   OF   THE   SALISBURY   COURT   PROPERTY 
To  illustrate  the  lease.    (Drawn  by  the  author.) 


the  said  Court  from  the  lane  called  Water  Lane  [C 
and  D];  and  all  the  ground  and  soil  being  between  the 
said  walls  on  the  east  and  west  part  thereof,  and  the 
said  barn,  stable,  and  ground  on  both  side  the  same 
on  the  south  and  north  parts  thereof  [E].  Which  said 
several  parcells  of  soil  and  ground  .  .  .  contain,  in 
the  whole  length  .  .  .  one  hundred  and  forty  foot  of 
assize,   and   in   breadth  .  .  .  forty   and   two  foot  of 


372     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

assize,  and  lies  together  at  the  lower  end  of  the  said 
Court. 

This  plot,  one  hundred  and  forty  feet  in  length 
by  forty-two  in  breadth,  was  small  for  its  purpose, 
and  the  playhouse  must  have  covered  all  the 
breadth  and  most  of  the  length  of  the  leased 
ground;  '  there  was  no  actual  need  of  leaving  any 
part  of  the  plot  vacant,  for  the  theatre  adjoined 
the  Court,  and  "free  ingress,  egress,  and  regress"  to 
the  building  were  stipulated  in  the  lease  "by, 
through,  and  on  any  part  of  the  Court  called  Salis- 
bury Court." 

At  once  Gunnell  and  Blagrove  set  about  the 
erection  of  their  playhouse.  They  may  have  util- 
ized in  some  way  the  "great  barn"  which  occupied 
most  of  their  property;  one  of  the  legal  documents 
printed  by  Cunningham  contains  the  phrase:  "and 
the  great  barn,  which  was  afterwards  the  play- 
house." 2  If  this  be  true  —  I  think  it  very  doubt- 
ful —  the  reconstruction  must  have  been  thorough, 
for  Howes,  in  his  continuation  of  Stow's  Annals 
(163 1),  speaks  of  Salisbury  Court  as  "a  new,  fair 
playhouse"; 3  and  in  all  respects  it  seems  to  have 
ranked  with  the  best. 

1  The  Blackfriars  auditorium  was  sixty-six  feet  in  length  and 
forty-six  feet  in  breadth. 

2  Cunningham,  The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  iv,  104.  In 
his  Handbook  for  London  Cunningham  says  that  the  Salisbury 
Court  Playhouse  "was  originally  the  'barn.'" 

*  Annals  (163 1),  p.  1004.  In  1633  Prynne  (Histriomastix)  refers 
to  it  as  a  "new  theatre  erected." 


SALISBURY   COURT  373 

We  know  very  little  of  the  building.  But  Wright, 
in  his  Historia  Histrionica,  informs  us  that  it  was 
"almost  exactly  like"  the  two  other  private  houses, 
the  Blackfriars  and  the  Cockpit: 

True.  The  Blackfriars,  Cockpit,  and  Salisbury  Court 
were  called  private  houses,  and  were  very  small  to  what 
we  see  now.  The  Cockpit  was  standing  since  the  Restora- 
tion, and  Rhodes'  company  acted  there  for  some  time. 

Love.   I  have  seen  that. 

True.  Then  you  have  seen  the  other  two  in  effect,  for 
they  were  all  three  built  almost  exactly  alike  for  form  and 
bigness.1 

In  spite  of  what  Wright  says,  however,  there  is 
some  reason  for  believing  that  Salisbury  Court  was 
smaller  than  the  other  two  private  houses.  The 
Epilogue  to  Totenham  Court  refers  to  it  as  "my 
little  house";  and  the  Epistle  affixed  to  the  second 
edition  of  Sir  Giles  Goosecappe  is  said  to  convey  the 
same  impression  of  smallness.2 

According  to  Malone,  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  the 
Master  of  the  Revels,  was  "one  of  the  proprietors" 
of  the  house,  and  held  a  "ninth  share"  in  the  prof- 
its.3 This,  however,  is  not  strictly  accurate.  Sir 
Henry,  by  virtue  of  his  power  to  license  playhouses, 
demanded  from  each  organization  of  players  an 

1  Collier  The  History  oj  English  Dramatic  Literature  (1879),  111, 
106,  thought  that  Salisbury  Court  was  a  round  playhouse,  basing 
his  opinion  on  a  line  in  Sharpe's  Noble  Stranger  acted  at  "the 
private  house  in  Salisbury  Court":  "Thy  Stranger  to  the  Globe- 
like theatre." 

2  I  have  not  been  able  to  examine  this.  In  the  only  copy  of 
the  second  edition  accessible  to  me  the  Epistle  is  missing. 

8    Malone,  Variorum,  iii,  178. 


374     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

annual  fee.  The  King's  Men  gave  him  two  benefit 
performances  a  year;  Christopher  Beeston,  on  be- 
half of  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane,  paid  him  £60  a 
year;  as  for  the  rest,  Herbert  tells  us  that  he  had 
"a  share  paid  by  the  Fortune  Players,  and  a  share 
by  the  Bull  Players,  and  a  share  by  the  Salisbury 
Court  Players."  *  It  seems,  therefore,  that  the 
Salisbury  Court  organization  was  divided  into 
eight  shares,  and  that  of  the  profits  an  extra,  or 
ninth,  share  was  set  aside  as  a  fee  for  the  Master 
of  the  Revels. 

The  playhouse  was  ready  for  use  in  all  probabil- 
ity in  the  autumn  of  1629;  and  to  occupy  it  a  new 
company  of  actors  was  organized,  known  as  "The 
King's  Revels."  The  chief  members  of  this  com- 
pany were  George  Stutville,  John  Young,  William 
Cartwright,  William  Wilbraham,  and  Christopher 
Goad;  Gunnell  and  Blagrove  probably  acted  as 
managers.  In  the  books  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
we  find  a  warrant  for  the  payment  of  £30  to  Wil- 
liam Blagrove  "and  the  rest  of  his  company"  for 
three  plays  acted  by  the  Children  of  the  Revels, 
at  Whitehall,  163 1.2  The  Children  continued  at 
Salisbury  Court  until  about  December,  163 1, 
when  they  abandoned  the  playhouse  in  favor  of  the 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  A  Collection  of  Ancient  Documents,  p.  27. 

2  See  Mrs.  Stopes's  extracts  from  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
books,  in  the  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch  (1910),  xlvi,  97.  This  entry 
probably  led  Cunningham  to  say  {The  Shakespeare  Society's 
Papers,  iv,  92)  that  Blagrove  was  "Master  of  the  Children  of  the 
Revels  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I." 


SALISBURY   COURT  375 

much  larger   Fortune,   surrendered  by  the  Pals- 
grave's Men. 

The  Palsgrave's  Men,  who  for  many  years  had 
occupied  the  Fortune,  seem  to  have  fallen  on  bad 
times  and  to  have  disbanded.  They  were  reorgan- 
ized, however,  possibly  by  their  old  manager,  Rich- 
ard Gunnell,  and  established  in  Salisbury  Court. 
The  Earl  of  Dorset,  who  took  a  special  interest  in 
Salisbury  Court,  obtained  for  the  troupe  a  patent 
to  play  under  the  name  of  the  infant  Prince 
Charles,  then  little  more  than  a  year  old.1  The 
patent  bears  the  date  of  December  7,  163 1 ;  and 
"The  Servants  of  the  High  and  Mighty  Prince 
Charles"  opened  at  Salisbury  Court  very  soon 
after  2  with  a  play  by  Marmion  entitled  Holland's 
Leaguer.  The  Prologue  refers  to  the  going  of  the 
King's  Revels  to  the  Fortune,  and  the  coming  of 
the  new  troupe  to  Salisbury  Court : 

Gentle  spectators,  that  with  graceful  eye 
Come  to  behold  the  Muses'  colony 
New  planted  in  this  soil,  forsook  of  late 
By  the  inhabitants,  since  made  Fortunate. 

The  Prologue  closes  thus: 

That  on  our  branches  now  new  poets  sing; 
And  when  with  joy  he  shall  see  this  resort 
Phoebus  shall  not  disdain  to  styl't  his  Court. 

But  the  audiences  at  Salisbury  Court  were  not 
large.     For   six    performances   of  the   play,   says 

1  For  Dorset's  interest  in  the  matter  see  Cunningham,  The 
Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  iv,  96. 

2  In  December,  163 1;  see  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  178. 


376     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Malone,  Sir  Henry  Herbert  received  "but  one 
pound  nineteen  shillings,  in  virtue  of  the  ninth 
share  which  he  possessed  as  one  of  the  proprietors 
of  the  house."  l 

Of  the  "new  poets"  referred  to  by  the  Prologue, 
one,  of  course,  was  Marmion  himself.  Another,  I 
venture  to  say,  was  James  Shirley,  who,  as  I  think, 
had  been  engaged  to  write  the  company's  second 
play.  This  was  The  Changes,  brought  out  at  Salis- 
bury Court  on  January  10.  The  Prologue  is  full  of 
allusions  to  the  company,  its  recent  misfortunes, 
and  its  present  attempt  to  establish  itself  in  its  new 
quarters : 

That  Muse,  whose  song  within  another  sphere  ■ 

Hath  pleased  some,  and  of  the  best,  whose  ear 

Is  able  to  distinguish  strains  that  are 

Clear  and  Phoebean  from  the  popular 

And  sinful  dregs  of  the  adulterate  brain, 

By  me  salutes  your  candour  once  again; 

And  begs  this  noble  favour,  that  this  place, 

And  weak  performances,  may  not  disgrace 

His  fresh  Thalia.3   'Las,  our  poet  knows 

We  have  no  name;  a  torrent  overflows 

Our  little  island;4  miserable  we 

Do  every  day  play  our  own  Tragedy. 

But  't  is  more  noble  to  create  than  kill, 

He  says;  and  if  but  with  his  flame,  your  will 

Would  join,  we  may  obtain  some  warmth,  and  prove 

Next  them  that  now  do  surfeit  with  your  love. 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  ill,  178. 

1  The  Cockpit,  for  which  Shirley  had  been  writing. 
s  Cf.  "new  poets"  of  Marmion's  Prologue. 
*  An  allusion  to  the  smallness  of  the  Salisbury  Court  Play- 
house? 


SALISBURY   COURT  377 

Encourage  our  beginning.  Nothing  grew 
Famous  at  first.   And,  gentlemen,  if  you 
Smile  on  this  barren  mountain,  soon  it  will 
Become  both  fruitful  and  the  Muses  hill. 

The  similarity  of  this  to  the  Prologue  of  Holland's 

Leaguer  is  striking;  and  the  Epilogue  is  written  in 

the  same  vein : 

Opinion 
Comes  hither  but  on  crutches  yet;  the  sun 
Hath  lent  no  beam  to  warm  us.   If  this  play 
Proceed  more  fortunate,  we  shall  bless  the  day 
And  love  that  brought  you  hither.   'T  is  in  you 
To  make  a  little  sprig  of  laurel  grow, 
And  spread  into  a  grove. 

All  scholars  who  have  written  on  the  subject  — 
Collier,  Fleay,  Greg,  Murray,  etc.  —  have  con- 
tended that  the  King's  Revels  Company  did  not 
leave  Salisbury  Court  until  after  January  10,  1632, 
because  Herbert  licensed  Shirley's  The  Changes  on 
that  date,1  and  the  title-page  of  the  only  edition  of 
The  Changes  states  that  it  was  acted  at  Salisbury 
Court  by  His  Majesty's  Revels.  But  Herbert 
records  payments  for  six  representations  of  Mar- 
mion's  Leaguer  by  Prince  Charles's  Men  at  Salis- 
bury Court  "in  December,  163 1."  2  This  latter 
date  must  be  correct,  for  on  January  26  Holland's 
Leaguer  was  entered  on  the  Stationers'  Register 
"as  it  hath  been  lately  and  often  acted  with  great 
applause  ...  at  the  private   house   in   Salisbury 

1  Malone,  Variorum,  m,  232.  But  Malone  was  a  careless  tran- 
scriber, and  Herbert  himself  sometimes  made  errors.  Possibly  the 
correct  date  is  January  10,  163 1.  *  Ibid.,  in,  178. 


378     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Court."  According  to  the  generally  accepted  the- 
ory, however,  the  King's  Men  were  still  at  Salis- 
bury Court,  and  actually  bringing  out  a  new  play 
there  so  late  as  January  10.  This  error  has  led  to 
much  confusion,  and  to  no  little  difficulty  for  his- 
torians of  the  stage;  for  example,  Mr.  Murray  is 
forced  to  suppose  that  two  royal  patents  were 
granted  to  Prince  Charles's  Company.1  It  seems 
to  me  likely  that  the  title-page  of  The  Changes  is 
incorrect  in  stating  that  the  play  was  acted  by  the 
King's  Revels.  The  play  must  have  been  acted  by 
the  new  and  as  yet  unpopular  Prince  Charles's 
Men,  who  had  occupied  Salisbury  Court  as  early 
as  December,  and,  as  Herbert  tells  us,  with  poor 
success.  The  various  dates  cited  clearly  indicate 
this;  and  the  Prologue  and  the  Epilogue  are  both 
wholly  unsuited  for  utterance  by  the  successful 
Revels  Company  which  had  just  been  "made 
Fortunate,"  but  are  quite  in  keeping  with  the  con- 
dition of  the  newly  organized  and  struggling  Prince 
Charles's  Men,  who  might  naturally  ask  the  public 
to  "encourage  our  beginning." 

Whether  Prince  Charles's  Men  ultimately  suc- 
ceeded in  winning  the  favor  of  the  public  we  do  not 
know.  Presumably  they  did,  for  at  some  date  be- 
fore 1635  they  moved  to  the  large  Red  Bull  Play- 
house. Richard  Heton  wrote:  "And  whereas  my 
Lord  of  Dorset  had  gotten  for  a  former  company  at 
Salisbury  Court  the  Prince's  service,  they,  being 

1  English  Dramatic  Companies,  I,  221. 


SALISBURY   COURT  379 

left  at  liberty,  took  their  opportunity  of  another 
house,  and  left  the  house  in  Salisbury  Court  desti- 
tute both  of  a  service  and  company."  l 

This  person,  Richard  Heton,  who  describes  him- 
self as  "one  of  the  Sewers  of  Her  Majesty's  Cham- 
ber Extraordinary,"  had  now  obtained  control  of 
Salisbury  Court,  and  had  become  manager  of  its 
affairs.2  He  apparently  induced  the  Company  of 
His  Majesty's  Revels  to  leave  the  Fortune  and 
return  to  Salisbury  Court,  for  in  1635  they  acted 
there  Richard  Brome's  The  Sparagus  Garden.  But 
their  career  at  Salisbury  Court  was  short;  on  May 
12  of  the  following  year  all  playhouses  were  closed 
by  the  plague,  and  acting  was  not  allowed  again  for 
nearly  a  year  and  a  half.  During  this  long  period  of 
inactivity,  the  Company  of  His  Majesty's  Revels 
was  largely  dispersed. 

When  at  last,  on  October  2, 1637,  the  playhouses 
were  allowed  to  open,  Heton  found  himself  with 
a  crippled  troupe  of  actors.  Again  the  Earl  of  Dor- 
set interested  himself  in  the  theatre.  Queen  Hen- 
rietta's Company,  which  had  been  at  the  Cockpit 
since  1625,  having  "  disperst  themselves,"  Dorset 
took  "care  to  make  up  a  new  company  for  the 

1  Richard  Heton,  "  Instructions  for  my  Pattent,"  The  Shake- 
speare Society's  Papers,  iv,  96. 

*  We  find  a  payment  to  Richard  Heton,  "  for  himself  and  the 
rest  of  the  company  of  the  players  at  Salisbury  Court,"  for  per- 
forming a  play  before  his  Majesty  at  Court,  October,  1635. 
(Chalmers's  Apology,  p.  509.)  Exactly  when  he  took  charge  of 
Salisbury  Court  I  am  unable  to  learn. 


380     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Queen";  *  and  he  placed  this  new  company  under 
Heton  at  Salisbury  Court.  Heton  writes:  "How 
much  I  have  done  for  the  upbuilding  of  this  Com- 
pany, I  gave  you  some  particulars  of  in  a  petition 
to  my  Lord  of  Dorset."  This  reorganization  of  the 
Queen's  Men  explains,  perhaps,  the  puzzling 
entry  in  Herbert's  Office-Book,  October  2,  1637: 
"  I  disposed  of  Perkins,  Sumner,  Sherlock,  and 
Turner,  to  Salisbury  Court,  and  joyned  them  with 
the  best  of  that  company."  2  Doubtless  Herbert, 
like  Dorset,  was  anxious  for  the  Queen  to  have  a 
good  troupe  of  players.  This  new  organization  of 
the  Queen's  Men  continued  at  Salisbury  Court 
without  interruption,  it  seems,  until  the  closing  of 
the  playhouses  in  1642. 3 

In  1649  John  Heme,  son  of  the  John  Heme  who 
in  1629  had  secured  a  lease  on  the  property  for 
sixty-one  years,  made  out  a  deed  of  sale  of  the 
playhouse  to  William  Beeston,4  for  the  sum  of 
£600.  But  the  document  was  not  signed.  The 
reason  for  this  is  probably  revealed  in  the  following 
passage:  "The  playhouse  in  Salisbury  Court,  in 

1  Cunningham,  The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  iv,  96. 
*  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  240. 

3  For  certain  troubles  at  Salisbury  Court  in  1644  and  1648,  see 
Collier,  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  (1879),  n,  37,  40, 

47- 

4  William  Beeston  was  the  son  of  the  famous  actor  Christopher 
Beeston,  who  was  once  a  member  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Men, 
later  manager  of  the  Fortune,  and  finally  proprietor  of  the  Cock- 
pit. In  1639  William  had  been  appointed  manager  of  the  Cockpit 
Company.   (See  pages  358  ff.) 


SALISBURY   COURT  381 

Fleet  Street,  was  pulled  down  *  by  a  company  of 
soldiers  set  on  by  the  sectaries  of  these  sad  times, 
on  Saturday,  the  24  day  of  March,  1649."  2 

Three  years  later,  however,  Beeston,  through  his 
agent  Theophilus  Bird,  secured  the  property  from 
Heme  at  the  reduced  price  of  £408:  "John  Heme, 
by  indenture  dated  the  five  and  twentieth  day  of 
May,  1652,  for  £408,  to  him  paid  by  Theophilus 
Bird,  did  assign  the  premises  and  all  his  estate 
therein  in  trust  for  the  said  William  Beeston."  3 

Early  in  1660  Beeston,  anticipating  the  return 
of  King  Charles,  and  the  reestablishment  of  the 
drama,  decided  to  put  his  building  back  into  con- 
dition to  serve  as  a  playhouse;  and  he  secured  from 
Herbert,  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  a  license  to  do 
so.4  On  April  5,  1660,  he  contracted  with  two  car- 
penters, Fisher  and  Silver,  "for  the  rebuilding  the 
premises";  and  to  secure  them  he  mortgaged  the 
property.  The  carpenters  later  swore  that  they 
"expended  in  the  same  work  £329  gs.  4J."  5 

The  reconstructed  playhouse  was  opened  in  1660, 
probably  as  early  as  June,  with  a  performance 

1  That  is,  stripped  of  its  benches,  stage-hangings,  and  other 
appliances  for  dramatic  performances. 

2  The  manuscript  entry  in  Stow's  Annals.  See  The  Academy, 
October  28,  1882,  p.  314.  On  the  same  date  the  soldiers  "pulled 
down  on  the  inside"  also  the  Phoenix  and  the  Fortune. 

8  Cunningham,  The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  iv,  103. 

4  Printed  in  Malone,  Variorum,  m,  243,  and  Halliwell-Phil- 
lipps,  A  Collection  of  Ancient  Documents,  p.  85.  The  language 
clearly  indicates  that  Beeston  was  to  reconvert  the  building  into 
a  theatre. 

'  Cunningham,  The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  iv,  103. 


382     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

of  The  Rump,  by  Tatham.  It  was  engaged  by 
Sir  William  Davenant  for  his  company  of  actors 
until  his  "new  theatre  with  scenes"  could  be 
erected  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields.1  The  ubiquitous 
Pepys  often  went  thither,  and  in  his  Diary  gives  us 
some  interesting  accounts  of  the  performances  he 
saw  there.  On  March  2,  1661,  he  witnessed  a  revi- 
val of  Thomas  Heywood's  Love's  Mistress,  or  Tfie 
Queen's  Masque  before  a  large  audience: 

After  dinner  I  went  to  the  Theatre  [i.e.,  Killigrew's 
playhouse]  where  I  found  so  few  people  (which  is 
strange,  and  the  reason  I  did  not  know)  that  I  went 
out  again;  and  so  to  Salisbury  Court,  where  the  house 
as  full  as  could  be;  and  it  seems  it  was  a  new  play, 
The  Queen's  Masque,  wherein  are  some  good  humours: 
among  others  a  good  jeer  to  the  old  story  of  the  Siege 
of  Troy,  making  it  to  be  a  common  country  tale.  But 
above  all  it  was  strange  to  see  so  little  a  boy  as  that 
was  to  act  Cupid,  which  is  one  of  the  greatest  parts 
in  it. 

Again,  on  March  26,  he  found  Salisbury  Court 
crowded : 

After  dinner  Mrs.  Pierce  and  her  husband,  and  I 
and  my  wife,  to  Salisbury  Court,  where  coming  late, 
he  and  she  light  of  Col.  Boone,  that  made  room  for 
them;  and  I  and  my  wife  sat  in  the  pit,  and  there  met 
with  Mr.  Lewes  and  Tom  Whitton,  and  saw  The 
Bondman  2  done  to  admiration. 

1  Malone,   Variorum,  hi,  257;  Halliwell-Phillipps,  A  Collec- 
tion of  Ancient  Documents,  p.  27. 
1  By  Philip  Massinger. 


SALISBURY   COURT  383 

The  history  of  the  playhouse  during  these  years 
falls  outside  the  scope  of  this  volume.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that  before  Beeston  finished  paying  the  car- 
penters for  their  work  of  reconstruction,  the  great 
fire  of  1666  swept  the  building  out  of  existence;  as 
Fisher  and  Silver  declared:  "The  mortgaged  prem- 
ises by  the  late  dreadful  fire  in  London  were  totally 
burned  down  and  consumed."  1 

1  The  subsequent  history  of  Salisbury  Court  is  traced  in  the 
legal  documents  printed  by  Cunningham.  Beeston  lost  the  prop- 
erty, and  Fisher  and  Silver  erected  nearer  the  river  a  handsome 
new  playhouse,  known  as  "The  Duke's  Theatre,"  at  an  estimated 
cost  of  £1000. 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE  COCKPIT-IN-COURT,  OR  THEATRE  ROYAL 
AT  WHITEHALL 

ON  birthdays,  holidays,  and  festive  occasions 
in  general  the  sovereigns  of  England  and  the 
members  of  the  royal  family  were  wont  to  summon 
the  professional  actors  to  present  plays  at  Court. 
For  the  accommodation  of  the  players  and  of  the 
audience,  the  larger  halls  at  Hampton,  Windsor, 
Greenwich,  St.  James,  Whitehall,  or  wherever  the 
sovereign  happened  to  be  at  the  time,  were  specially 
fitted  up,  often  at  great  expense.  At  one  end  of  the 
hall  was  erected  a  temporary  stage  equipped  with 
a  "music-room,"  "players'  houses  of  canvas," 
painted  properties,  and  such  other  things  as  were 
necessary  to  the  actors.  In  the  centre  of  the  hall, 
on  an  elevated  dais,  were  provided  seats  for  the 
royal  family,  and  around  and  behind  the  dais, 
stools  for  the  more  distinguished  guests;  a  large 
part  of  the  audience  was  allowed  to  stand  on  plat- 
forms raised  in  tiers  at  the  rear  of  the  room.  Since 
the  plays  were  almost  invariably  given  at  night, 
the  stage  was  illuminated  by  special  "branches" 
hung  on  wires  overhead,  and  carrying  many  lights. 
In  the  accounts  of  the  Office  of  the  Revels  one  may 
find  interesting  records  of  plays  presented  in  this 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         385 

manner,  with  the  miscellaneous  items  of  expense 
for  making  the  halls  ready. 

Usually  the  Court  performances,  like  the  masques, 
were  important,  almost  official  occasions,  and  many 
guests,  including  the  members  of  the  diplomatic 
corps,  were  invited.  To  provide  accommodation 
for  so  numerous  an  audience,  a  large  room  was 
needed.  Hampton  Court  possessed  a  splendid  room 
for  the  purpose  in  the  Great  Banqueting  Hall, 
one  hundred  and  six  feet  in  length  and  forty  feet  in 
breadth.  But  the  palace  at  Whitehall  for  many 
years  had  no  room  of  a  similar  character.  For  the 
performance  of  a  masque  there  in  1559  the  Queen 
erected  a  temporary  "Banqueting  House."  Again, 
in  1572,  to  entertain  the  Duke  of  Montmorency, 
Ambassador  from  France,  she  had  a  large  "Ban- 
ketting  House  made  at  Whitehall,"  covered  with 
canvas  and  decorated  with  ivy  and  flowers  gath- 
ered fresh  from  the  fields.  An  account  of  the  struc- 
ture may  be  found  in  the  records  of  the  Office  of  the 
Revels.  Perhaps,  however,  the  most  elaborate  and 
substantial  of  these  "banqueting  houses"  was  that 
erected  in  1581,  to  entertain  the  ambassadors  from 
France  who  came  to  treat  of  a  marriage  between 
Elizabeth  and  the  Due  d'Anjou.  The  structure  is 
thus  described  by  Holinshed  in  his  Chronicle: l 

This  year  (against  the  coming  of  certain  commis- 
sioners out  of  France  into  England),  by  Her  Majes- 

1  Edition  of  1808,  iv,  434.  See  also  Stow's  Chronicle,  under  the 
year  1581. 


386     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

ty's  appointment,  on  the  sixth  and  twentieth  day  of 
March,  in  the  morning  (being  Easter  Day),  a  Ban- 
queting House  was  begun  at  Westminster,  on  the 
south-west  side  of  Her  Majesty's  palace  of  Whitehall, 
made  in  manner  and  form  of  a  long  square,  three  hun- 
dred thirty  and  two  foot  in  measure  about;  thirty 
principals  made  of  great  masts,  being  forty  foot  in 
length  apiece,  standing  upright;  between  every  one 
of  these  masts  ten  foot  asunder  and  more.  The  walls 
of  this  house  were  closed  with  canvas,  and  painted  all 
the  outsides  of  the  same  most  artificially,  with  a  work 
called  rustic,  much  like  stone.  This  house  had  two 
hundred  ninety  and  two  lights  of  glass.  The  sides 
within  the  same  house  was  made  with  ten  heights  of 
degrees  for  people  to  stand  upon;  and  in  the  top  of 
this  house  was  wrought  most  cunningly  upon  canvas 
works  of  ivy  and  holly,  with  pendants  made  of  wicker 
rods,  garnished  with  bay,  rue,  and  all  manner  of 
strange  flowers  garnished  with  spangles  of  gold;  as 
also  beautified  with  hanging  toseans  made  of  holly 
and  ivy,  with  all  manner  of  strange  fruits,  as  pome- 
granates, oranges,  pompions,  cucumbers,  grapes,  car- 
rots, with  such  other  like,  spangled  with  gold,  and 
most  richly  hanged.  Betwixt  these  works  of  bays  and 
ivy  were  great  spaces  of  canvas,  which  was  most  cun- 
ningly painted,  the  clouds  with  stars,  the  sun  and 
sun-beams,  with  diverse  other  coats  of  sundry  sorts 
belonging  to  the  Queen's  Majesty,  most  richly  gar- 
nished with  gold.  There  were  of  all  manner  of  persons 
working  on  this  house  to  the  number  of  three  hundred 
seventy  and  five:  two  men  had  mischances,  the  one 
broke  his  leg,  and  so  did  the  other.  This  house  was 
made  in  three  weeks  and  three  days,  and  was  ended 
the  eighteenth  day  of  April,  and  cost  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  forty  and  four  pounds,  nineteen  shil- 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         387 

lings,  and  od  mony,  as  I  was  credibly  informed  by  the 
worshipful  master  Thomas  Grave,  surveyor  unto  Her 
Majesty's  works,  who  served  and  gave  order  for  the 
same. 

Although  built  in  such  a  short  time,  and  of  such 
flimsy  material,  this  expensive  Banqueting  House 
seems  to  have  been  allowed  to  stand,  and  to  have 
been  used  thereafter  for  masques  and  plays.  Thus, 
when  King  James  came  to  the  throne,  he  ordered 
plays  to  be  given  there  in  November,  1604.  We 
find  the  following  entry  in  the  Treasurer's  accounts : 

For  making  ready  the  Banqueting  House  at  White- 
hall for  the  King's  Majesty  against  the  plays,  by  the 
space  of  four  days  .  .  .  ySs.  yd. 

And  the  accounts  of  the  Revels'  Office  inform  us : 

Hallomas  Day,  being  the  first  of  November,  a  play 
in  the  Banqueting  House  at  Whitehall,  called  The 
Moor  of  Venice. 

Apparently,  however,  the  King  was  not  pleased 
with  the  Banqueting  House  as  a  place  for  dramatic 
performances,  for  he  promptly  ordered  the  Great 
Hall  of  the  palace  —  a  room  approximately  ninety 
feet  in  length  and  forty  feet  in  breadth  }  —  to  be 
made  ready  for  the  next  play: 

For  making  ready  the  Great  Chamber  at  Whitehall 
for  the  King's  Majesty  to  see  the  play,  by  the  space 
of  two  days  .  .  .  39J.  \d. 

1  This  had  once  already,  on  Shrove  Tuesday,  1604,  been  used 
for  a  play.  The  situation  and  ground-plan  of  the  "Great  Hall" 
are  clearly  shown  in  Fisher's  Survey  of  the  palace,  made  about 
1670,  and  engraved  by  Vertue,  1747. 


388     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

The  work  was  completed  with  dispatch,  for  on 
the  Sunday  following  the  performance  of  Othello  in 
the  Banqueting  House,  The  Merry  Wives  of  Wind- 
sor was  acted  in  the  Great  Hall.  The  next  play  to 
be  given  at  Court  was  also  presented  in  the  same 
room: 

On  St.  Stephen's  Night,  in  the  Hall,  a  play  called 
Measure  for  Measure. 

And  from  this  time  on  the  Great  Hall  was  the 
usual  place  for  Court  performances.  The  abandon- 
ment of  the  Banqueting  House  was  probably  due 
to  the  facts  that  the  Hall  was  smaller  in  size,  could 
be  more  easily  heated  in  the  winter,  and  was  in 
general  better  adapted  to  dramatic  performances. 
Possibly  the  change  was  due  also  to  the  decayed 
condition  of  the  old  structure  and  to  preparations 
for  its  removal.  Stow,  in  his  Annals  under  the  date 
of  1607,  writes: 

The  last  year  the  King  pulled  down  the  old,  rotten, 
slight-builded  Banqueting  House  at  Whitehall,  and 
new-builded  the  same  this  year  very  strong  and 
stately,  being  every  way  larger  than  the  first.1 

This  new  Banqueting  House  was  completed  in 
the  early  part  of  1608.  John  Chamberlain  writes  to 
Sir  Dudley  Carleton  on  January  5,  1608:  "The 
masque  goes  forward  at  Court  for  Twelfth  Day,  tho' 
I  doubt  the  New  Room  will  be  scant  ready."  2 
Thereafter   the    Banqueting  House,   "every  way 

1  Stow's  Annals,  continued  by  Edmund  Howes  (163 1),  p.  891. 
1  John  Nichols,  The  Progresses  of  James,  11,  162. 


THE  COCKPIT-IN-COURT         389 

larger  than  the  first,"  was  regularly  used  for  the 
presentation  of  masques.  But  it  was  rarely  if  ever 
used  for  plays.  Throughout  the  reign  of  James, 
the  ordinary  place  for  dramatic  performances,  as 
has  been  observed,  was  the  Great  Hall. 

On  January  12,  16 19,  as  a  result  of  negligence 
during  the  preparations  for  a  masque,  the  Ban- 
queting House  caught  fire  and  was  burned  to 
the  ground.  The  Reverend  Thomas  Lorkin  writes 
to  Sir  Thomas  Puckering  on  January  19,  1619: 

The  unhappy  accident  that  chanced  at  Whitehall 
last  week  by  fire  you  cannot  but  have  heard  of;  but 
haply  not  the  manner  how,  which  was  this.  A  joiner 
was  appointed  to  mend  some  things  that  were  out  of 
order  in  the  device  of  the  masque,  which  the  King 
meant  to  have  repeated  at  Shrovetide,  who,  having 
kindled  a  fire  upon  a  false  hearth  to  heat  his  glue-pot, 
the  force  thereof  pierced  soon,  it  seems,  the  single 
brick,  and  in  a  short  time  that  he  absented  himself 
upon  some  occasion,  fastened  upon  the  basis,  which 
was  of  dry  deal  board,  underneath;  which  suddenly 
conceiving  flame,  gave  fire  to  the  device  of  the 
masque,  all  of  oiled  paper,  and  dry  fir,  etc.  And  so,  in 
a  moment,  disposed  itself  among  the  rest  of  that 
combustible  matter  that  it  was  past  any  man's  ap- 
proach before  it  was  almost  discovered.  Two  hours 
begun  and  ended  that  woful  sight. 

Inigo  Jones,  who  had  dreamed  of  a  magnificent 
palace  at  Whitehall,  and  who  had  drawn  elaborate 
plans  for  a  royal  residence  which  should  surpass 
anything  in  Europe,  now  took  charge  of  building  a 
new  Banqueting  House  as  a  first  step  in  the  realiza- 


l9o     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 


THE   COCKPIT 

Probably  as  built  by  Henry  VIII.  (From  Faithorne's  Map  of  London,  1658. 
The  Whitehall  district  is  represented  as  it  was  many  years  earlier;  compare 
Agas's  Map,  1560). 


tion  of  his  scheme.  The  noble  structure  which  he 
erected  is  to-day  one  of  his  chief  monuments,  and 
the  sole  relic  of  the  once  famous  royal  palace.  It 
was  completed  in  the  spring  of  1622;  but,  as  in  the 
case  of  its  predecessor,  it  was  not  commonly  used 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         391 

for  dramatic  entertainments.  Though  masques 
might  be  given  there,  the  regular  place  for  plays 
continued  to  be  the  Great  Hall. 

In  the  meanwhile,  however,  there  had  been  de- 
veloped at  Court  the  custom  of  having  small  pri- 
vate performances  in  the  Cockpit,  in  addition  to  the 
more  elaborate  performances  in  the  Great  Hall. 
Since  this  ultimately  led  to  the  establishment  of  a 
theatre  royal,  known  as  "The  Cockpit-in-Court," 
it  will  be  necessary  to  trace  in  some  detail  the 
history  of  that  structure. 

The  palace  of  Whitehall,  anciently  called  York 
House,  and  the  home  of  thirty  successive  Arch- 
bishops of  York,  was  seized  by  King  Henry  VIII  at 
the  fall  of  Wolsey  and  converted  into  a  royal  resi- 
dence.1 The  new  proprietor  at  once  made  im- 
provements after  his  own  taste,  among  which  were 
tennis-courts,  bowling-alleys,  and  an  amphitheatre 
for  the  "royal  sport"  of  cock-fighting.  In  Stow's 
description  of  the  palace  we  read : 

On  the  right  hand  be  diverse  fair  tennis  courts, 
bowling  alleys,  and  a  Cockpit,  all  built  by  King 
Henry  the  Eight. 

Strype,  in  his  edition  of  Stow's  Survey  (1720),  adds 
the  information  that  the  Cockpit  was  made  "out 

1  Shakespeare  writes  (Henry  Fill,  iv,  i,  94-97) : 

Sir  you 
Must  no  more  call  it  York-place,  that  is  past; 
For  since  the  Cardinal  fell,  that  title 's  lost: 
'Tis  now  the  King's,  and  called  Whitehall. 


392     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

of  certain  old  tenements."  '  It  is  pictured  in 
Agas's  Map  of  London  (1570),  and  more  clearly  in 
Faithorne's  Map  (see  page  390),  printed  in  1658, 
but  apparently  representing  the  city  at  an  earlier 
date. 

During  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  the  Cockpit,  so 
far  as  I  can  ascertain,  was  never  used  for  plays.  In 
the  voluminous  documents  relating  to  the  Office  of 
the  Revels  there  is  only  one  reference  to  the  build- 
ing: in  1572  flowers  were  temporarily  stored  there 
that  were  to  be  used  for  decking  the  "Banketting 
House." 

It  was  during  the  reign  of  King  James  that  the 
Cockpit  began  to  be  used  for  dramatic  representa- 
tions. John  Chamberlain  writes  from  London  to 
Sir  Ralph  Winwood,  December  18,  1604:  "Here  is 
great  provision  for  Cockpit  to  entertain  him  [the 
King]  at  home,  and  of  masques  and  revels  against 
the  marriage  of  Sir  Herbert  and  Lady  Susan 
Vere."  2  Since,  however,  King  James  was  very 
fond  of  cock-fighting,  it  may  be  that  Chamberlain 
was  referring  to  that  royal  entertainment  rather 
than  to  plays.  The  small  Cockpit  was  certainly  a 
very  unusual  place  for  the  formal  presentation 
of  plays  before  His  Majesty  and  the  Court. 

But  the  young  Prince  Henry,  whose  official  resi- 
dence was  in  St.  James's  Palace,  often  had  private 
or  semi-private  performances  of  plays  in  the  Cock- 

1  Book  vi,  page  6. 

1  Winwood  State  Papers  (1725),  n,  41. 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         393 

pit.    In  the  rolls  of  the  expenses  of  the  Prince  we 
find  the  following  records : 1 

For  making  ready  the  Cockpit  four  several  times 
for  plays,  by  the  space  of  four  days,  in  the  month  of 
December,  1610,  £2  10s.  8^. 

For  making  ready  the  Cockpit  for  plays  two  several 
times,  by  the  space  of  four  days,  in  the  months  of 
January  and  February,  161 1,  jos.  8d. 

For  making  ready  the  Cockpit  for  a  play,  by  the 
space  of  two  days,  in  the  month  of  December,  161 1, 
3  Of.  \d. 

The  building  obviously,  was  devoted  for  the 
most  part  to  other  purposes,  and  had  to  be  "made 
ready"  for  plays  at  a  considerable  expense.  Nor  was 
the  Prince  the  only  one  who  took  advantage  of  its 
small  amphitheatre.  John  Chamberlain,  in  a  letter 
to  Sir  Dudley  Carleton  on  September  22,  161 2, 
describing  the  reception  accorded  to  the  Count 
Palatine  by  the  Lady  Elizabeth,  writes:  "On 
Tuesday  she  sent  to  invite  him  as  he  sat  at  supper 
to  a  play  of  her  own  servants  in  the  Cockpit." 2 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  at  times  throughout  the 
reign  of  James  dramatic  performances  were  given 
in  the  Cockpit;  but  the  auditorium  was  small, 
and  the  performances  must  have  been  of  a  semi- 
private  nature.  The  important  Court  perform- 
ances, to  which  many  guests  were  invited,  were 
held  in  the  Great  Hall. 

1  See  Cunningham,  Extracts  from  the  Accounts  of  the  Revels, 
pp.  xiii-xiv. 

2  John  Nichols,  The  Progresses  of  James,  n,  466. 


394     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

In  the  reign  of  the  next  sovereign,  however,  a 
change  came  about.  In  the  year  1632  or  1633,  as 
well  as  I  am  able  to  judge  with  the  evidence  at 
command,  King  Charles  reconstructed  the  old 
Cockpit  into  a  "new  theatre  at  Whitehall,"  which 
from  henceforth  was  almost  exclusively  used  for 
Court  performances.  The  opening  of  this  "new 
theatre  royal"  is  celebrated  by  a  Speech  from  the 
pen  of  Thomas  Heywood : 

A  Speech  Spoken  to  Their  Tzvo  Excellent  Majesties  at 

the  First  Play  Play'd  by  the  Queen's  Servants  in 

the  New  Theatre  at  Whitehall. 

When  Greece,  the  chief  priority  might  claim 
For  arts  and  arms,  and  held  the  eminent  name 
Of  Monarchy,  they  erected  divers  places, 
Some  to  the  Muses,  others  to  the  Graces, 
Where  actors  strove,  and  poets  did  devise, 
With  tongue  and  pen  to  please  the  ears  and  eyes 
Of  Princely  auditors.   The  time  was,  when 
To  hear  the  rapture  of  one  poet's  pen 
A  Theatre  hath  been  built. 

By  the  Fates'  doom, 

When  th'  Empire  was  removed  from  thence  to  Rome, 

The  Potent  Caesars  had  their  circi,  and 

Large  amphitheatres,  in  which  might  stand 

And  sit  full  fourscore  thousand,  all  in  view 

And  touch  of  voice.   This  great  Augustus  knew, 

Nay  Rome  its  wealth  and  potency  enjoyed, 

Till  by  the  barbarous  Goths  these  were  destroy'd. 

But  may  this  structure  last,  and  you  be  seen 
Here  a  spectator,  with  your  princely  Queen, 
In  your  old  age,  as  in  your  flourishing  prime, 
To  outstrip  Augustus  both  in  fame  and  time. 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         395 

The  exact  date  of  this  Speech  is  not  given,  but  it 
was  printed  l  in  1637  along  with  "The  Prologue  to 
the  Famous  Tragedy  of  The  Rich  Jew  of  Malta,  as 
it  Was  Played  Before  the  King  and  Queen  in  His 
Majesty's  Theatre  at  Whitehall";  and  this  Pro- 
logue Heywood  had  already  published  with  the 
play  itself  in  1633.  He  dedicated  the  play  to 
Mr.  Thomas  Hammon,  saying,  "I  had  no  better  a 
New-Year's  gift  to  present  you  with."  Appar- 
ently, then,  the  play  had  been  acted  at  Court 
shortly  before  New  Year's,  1633;  and  this  sets  a 
forward  date  to  Heywood's  Speech.  Other  evidence 
combines  with  this  to  show  that  "His  Majesty's 
Theatre  at  Whitehall"  was  "new"  at  the  Christ- 
mas season  of  1632-33. 

In  erecting  this,  the  first  "theatre  royal,"  King 
Charles  would  naturally  call  for  the  aid  of  the  great 
Court  architect  Inigo  Jones,2  and  by  good  luck 
we  have  preserved  for  us  Jones's  original  sketches 
for  the  little  playhouse  (see  page  396).  These  were 
discovered  a  few  years  ago  by  Mr.  Hamilton  Bell 
in  the  Library  of  Worcester  College  (where  many 
valuable  relics  of  the  great  architect  are  stored),  and 
printed  in  The  Architectural  Record  of  New  York, 
March,  1913.    Mr.  Bell  accompanied  the  plans  with 

1  See   The  Dramatic  Works  of  Thomas  Heywood  (1874),  vi, 

339- 

2  Whether  he  merely  made  over  the  old  Cockpit  which  Henry 
VIII  had  constructed  "out  of  certain  old  tenements,"  or  erected 
an  entirely  new  building,  I  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain.  Hey- 
wood's Speech  indicates  a  "new"  and  "lasting"  structure. 


396     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

a  valuable  discussion,  but  he  was  unable  to  dis- 
cover their  purpose.  He  writes: 

Wc  have  still  no  clue  as  to  what  purpose  this  curi- 
ously anomalous  and  most  interesting  structure  was 
to  serve —  whether  the  plan  was  ever  carried  out,  or 
whether  it  remained  part  of  a  lordly  pleasure-house 
which  its  prolific  designer  planned  for  the  delectation 
of  his  own  soul. 

That  the  plan  actually  was  carried  out,  at  least 
in  part,  is  shown  by  a  sketch  of  the  Whitehall  build- 
ings made  by  John  Fisher  at  some  date  before  1670, 
and  engraved  by  Vertue  in  1747,  (see  page  398). l 
Here,  in  the  northeast  corner  of  the  palace,  we  find 
a  little  theatre,  labeled  "The  Cockpit."  Its  identity 
with  the  building  sketched  by  Inigo  Jones  is  ob- 
vious at  a  glance;  even  the  exterior  measurements, 
which  are  ascertainable  from  the  scales  of  feet 
given  on  the  two  plans,  are  the  same. 

Mr.  Bell  describes  the  plan  he  discovered  as 
follows : 2 

It  represents  within  a  square  building,  windowed 
on  three  sides  and  on  one  seemingly  attached  to  an- 
other building,  an  auditorium  occupying  five  sides  of 
an  octagon,  on  the  floor  of  which  are  shown  the 
benches  of  a  pit,  or  the  steps,  five  in  number,  on  which 
they  could  be  set.  These  are  curiously  arranged  at  an 
angle  of  forty-five  degrees  on  either  side  of  a  central 

1  Vertue  conservatively  dates  the  survey  "about  1680";  but 
the  names  of  the  occupants  of  the  various  parts  of  the  palace 
show  that  it  was  drawn  before  1670,  and  nearer  1660  than  1680. 

1  Reprinted  here  by  the  kind  permission  of  Mr.  Bell  and  the 
editors  of  The  Architectural  Record. 


! 


-Cf    M 


■ 


-a* 


S  ? 


>       > 


1* 

§5 


cS-E 


o  a 

o    ° 

i— i     52 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT  397 

aisle,  so  that  the  spectators  occupying  them  could 
never  have  directly  faced  the  stage.  Surrounding  this 
pit  on  five  sides  is  a  balcony  ten  feet  deep,  with,  it 
would  seem,  two  rows  of  benches  on  four  of  its  sides; 
the  fifth  side  in  the  centre,  directly  opposite  the  stage, 
being  partitioned  off  into  a  room  or  box,  in  the  middle 
of  which  is  indicated  a  platform  about  five  feet  by 
seven,  presumably  for  the  Royal  State.  Three  steps 
descend  from  this  box  to  the  centre  aisle  of  the  pit. 
To  the  left  of  and  behind  this  royal  box  appears  an- 
other enclosure  or  box,  partitioned  off"  from  the  rest 
of  the  balcony. 

The  staircases  of  access  to  this  auditorium  are 
clearly  indicated;  one  small  door  at  the  rear  of  the  salle 
with  its  own  private  stairway,  communicating  with 
the  adjoining  building,  opens  directly  into  the  royal 
box;  as  in  the  Royal  Opera  House  in  Berlin  to-day. 

There  is  another  door,  with  a  triangular  lobby,  into 
the  rear  of  the  left-hand  balcony.  Two  windows  are 
shown  on  each  side  of  the  house,  opening  directly  into 
the  theatre  from  the  outer  air. 

The  stage  runs  clear  across  the  width  of  the  pit, 
about  thirty-five  feet,  projecting  in  an  "apron"  or 
avant  scene  five  feet  beyond  the  proscenium  wall,  and 
is  surrounded  on  the  three  outward  sides  by  a  low 
railing  of  classic  design  about  eighteen  inches  in 
height,  just  as  in  many  Elizabethan  playhouses. 

If  one  may  trust  an  elevation  of  the  stage,  drawn 
on  the  same  sheet  to  twice  the  scale  of  the  general 
plan,  the  stage  was  four  feet  six  inches  above  the  floor 
of  the  pit.  This  elevation  exhibits  the  surprising 
feature  of  a  classic  facade,  Palladian  in  treatment,  on 
the  stage  of  what  so  far  we  have  regarded  as  a  late 
modification  of  a  playhouse  of  Shakespeare's  day. 
Evidently  Inigo  Jones  contemplated  the  erection  of  a 


398     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

permanent  architectural  proscenium,  as  the  ancients 
called  it,  of  the  type,  though  far  more  modest,  both 
in  scale  and  ornamentation,  of  Palladio's  Theatro 
Olimpico  at  Vicenza,  which  we  know  he  visited  in 
about  1600,  some  twenty  years  after  its  erection. 
This  proscenium,  given  in  plan  and  elevation,  shows  a 
semi-circular  structure  with  a  radius  of  fifteen  feet, 
two  stories  in  height,  of  the  Corinthian  or  Composite 
order.  In  the  lower  story  are  five  doorways,  the  cen- 
tre of  which  is  a  large  archway  flanked  by  pedestals, 
on  which  are  inscribed  in  Greek  characters,  Melpom- 
ene—  Thalia;  over  these  and  over  the  smaller  doors 
are  tablets. 

The  second  story  contains  between  its  lighter  en- 
gaged columns,  over  the  four  side  doors,  niches  with 
corbels  below,  destined  to  carry  statues  as  their  in- 
scribed bases  indicate.  So  far  as  these  inscriptions 
are  legible,  —  the  clearest  reading  "phocles,"  prob- 
ably Sophocles,  —  these  were  to  represent  Greek 
dramatists,  most  likely  ^Eschylus,  Euripides,  Sopho- 
cles and  Aristophanes. 

The  curved  pediment  of  the  central  archway  runs 
up  into  this  story  and  is  broken  in  the  middle  by  a 
tablet  bearing  the  inscription  "Prodesse  et  Delec- 
tare,"  which  is  flanked  by  two  reclining  genii  holding 
garlands. 

Above  these  are  two  busts  on  brackets,  Thespis  and 
Epicurus,  or  possibly  Epicharmus.  The  space  directly 
above  this  pediment  is  occupied  by  a  window-like 
opening  five  by  four  feet,  the  traditional  Elizabethan 
music-room,  in  all  probability,  which,  Mr.  W.  J. 
Lawrence  has  shown  us,  occupied  this  position  both 
in  Shakespeare's  day  and  for  some  time  after  the 
Restoration;  an  arrangement  which  was  revived  by 
Mr.  Steele  Mackaye  in  the  Madison  Square  Theatre, 


S3  O, 

a  o 

u  u 

>  J 


o 

H  ti 

h  .a 

w  ^ 


tt 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         399 

and  originally  in  the  first  little  Lyceum,  New  York, 
both  now  pulled  down.  The  pyramidal  pediment 
above  this  opening  projects  above  the  upper  cornice 
into  a  coved  ceiling,  which  would  appear  from  the 
rendering  of  the  drawing  to  form  an  apse  above  the 
semi-circular  stage.  Behind  the  proscenium  is  a  large 
space  with  staircases  of  approach,  two  windows  at  the 
rear,  and  apparently  a  fireplace  for  the  comfort  of  the 
waiting  players.  Communication  with  the  front  of 
the  house  is  provided  by  a  door  in  the  proscenium 
wall  opening  into  the  stage  door  lobby,  whence  the 
outside  of  the  building  may  be  reached. 

There  is  no  indication  of  galleries,  unless  some 
marks  on  the  angles  of  the  front  wall  of  the  balcony 
may  be  interpreted  without  too  much  license  into  the 
footings  of  piers  or  posts  to  carry  one;  the  total  in- 
terior height  shown  in  the  elevation  from  what  I  have 
assumed  to  be  the  floor  of  the  pit  to  the  ceiling  being 
only  twenty-eight  feet,  there  would  hardly  have  been 
room  for  more  than  one.  The  only  staircases  which 
could  have  served  it  are  at  the  rear  of  the  building  in 
the  corners  behind  the  stage  wall.  .  .  . 

The  general  dimensions  would  appear  to  be: 

Total  width  of  the  auditorium 58  ft. 

Total  width  of  the  pit 36  ft. 

Total  width  of  the  front  stage  or  "  apron  "...    3  5  ft. 
Total  depth  of  the  stage  from  the  railing  to 

the  centre  of  the  proscenium 16  ft. 

The  entire  building  is  58  feet  square  inside,  cut  to 

an  octagon  of  28  feet  each  side. 

Height  from  floor  to  ceiling 28  ft. 

Height  from  stage  to  ceiling about  23  ft.  6  in. 

The  lower  order  of  the  proscenium 10  ft.  6  in. 

The  upper  order  of  the  proscenium 9  ft.  6  in. 

The  scale  on  the  drawing  may  not  be  absolutely 
correct,  as  measured  by  it  the  side  doors  of  the  pro- 


4oo    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

scenium  are  only  five  feet  high  and  two  feet  nine  inches 
wide:  this,  however,  may  be  an  error  in  the  drawing, 
since  we  have  it  on  very  good  authority  that  Inigo 
Jones  designed  without  the  use  of  a  scale,  proportion- 
ing his  various  members  by  his  exquisitely  critical 
eye  alone,  subsequently  adding  the  dimensions  in 
writing. 

I  record  below  some  of  the  references  to  the 
Cockpit  which  I  have  gathered  from  the  Herbert 
Manuscript  and  the  Office-Books  of  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain. The  earliest  payment  for  plays  there,  it 
will  be  observed,  is  dated  March  16,  1633.  Abun- 
dant evidence  shows  that  the  actors  gave  their  per- 
formance in  the  Cockpit  at  night  without  interfer- 
ing with  their  regular  afternoon  performance  at 
their  playhouses,  and  for  their  pains  received  the 
sum  of  £10.  If,  however,  for  any  reason  they  "lost 
their  day"  at  their  house  they  were  paid  £20. 

1633.  March  16.  Warrant  to  pay  £270  to  John 
Lowen,  Joseph  Taylor,  and  Eilliard  Swanston,  His 
Majesty's  Comedians,  for  plays  by  them  acted  before 
His  Majesty,  viz.  —  £20  for  the  rehearsal  of  one  at 
the  Cockpit,  by  which  means  they  lost  their  after- 
noon at  their  house.  .  .  .  l 

1634.  Bussy  d'Amboise  was  played  by  the  King's 
Players  on  Easter-Monday  night,  at  the  Cockpit-in- 
Court.2 

1  Lord  Chamberlain's  Office-Book,  C.  C.  Stopes,  "Shake- 
speare's Fellows  and  Followers,"  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvi, 
96. 

8  Herbert  MS.,  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  237. 


THE  COCKPIT-IN-COURT         401 

1634.  The  Pastorall  was  played  by  the  King's 
Players  on  Easter-Tuesday  night,  at  the  Cockpit-in- 
Court.1 

1635.  10  May.  A  warrant  for  £30  unto  Mons. 
Josias  Floridor,  for  himself  and  the  rest  of  the  French 
players  for  three  plays  acted  by  them  at  the  Cockpit.2 

1635.  10  Decern1.  —  A  warrant  for  £100  to  the 
Prince's  Comedians,  —  viz.  £60  for  three  plays 
acted  at  Hampton  Court,  at  £20  for  each  play,  in 
September  and  October,  1634.  And  £40  for  four 
plays  at  Whitehall  and  [query  "at"]  the  Cockpit  in 
January,  February,  and  May  following,  at  £10  for 
each  play.3 

1636.  The  first  and  second  part  of  Arviragus  and 
Philicia  were  acted  at  the  Cockpit  before  the  King 
and  Queen,  the  Prince,  and  Prince  Elector,  the  18  and 
19  April,  1636,  being  Monday  and  Tuesday  in  Easter 
week.4 


Other  similar  allusions  to  performance  in  the 
Cockpit  might  be  cited  from  the  Court  records. 
One  more  will  suffice  —  the  most  interesting  of  all, 
since  it  shows  how  frequently  the  little  theatre  was 
employed  for  the  entertainment  of  the  royal  family. 
It  is  a  bill  presented  by  the  Blackfriars  Company, 
the  King's  Men,  for  Court  performances  during 
the  year  1637.  This  bill  was  discovered  and  repro- 
duced in  facsimile  by  George  R.  Wright,  F.S.A.,  in 

1  Herbert  MS.,  Malone,  Variorum,    in,  237. 

*  Lord  Chamberlain's  Office-Book,  Chalmers's  Apology,  p.  508. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  509. 

*  The  Herbert  MS.,  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  238. 


4o2     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

The  Journal  of  the  British  Archceological  Associa- 
tion for  i860;  but  it  was  wholly  misunderstood  by 
its  discoverer,  who  regarded  it  as  drawn  up  by  the 
company  of  players  that  "performed  at  the  Cock- 
pit in  Drury  Lane."  He  was  indeed  somewhat 
puzzled  by  the  reference  to  the  Blackfriars  Play- 
house, but  met  the  difficulty  by  saying:  "There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  last-named  theatre  was 
lent  for  the  occasion  to  the  Cockpit  Company," 
although  he  suggests  no  reason  for  this  strange  bor- 
rowing of  a  theatre  by  a  troupe  that  possessed  a 
house  of  its  own,  and  much  nearer  the  Court,  too. 
It  did  not  even  occur  to  him,  it  seems,  to  inquire 
how  the  Cockpit  Company  secured  the  plays  which 
we  know  belonged  to  Shakespeare's  old  company. 
Because  of  these  obvious  difficulties  scholars  have 
looked  upon  the  document  with  suspicion,  and 
apparently  have  treated  it  as  a  forgery.1  But  that 
it  is  genuine  is  indicated  by  the  history  of  "The 
Cockpit-in-Court "  as  sketched  above,  and  is  proved 
beyond  any  question  by  the  fact  that  the  Office- 
Book  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  shows  that  the  bill 
was  paid: 

12th  March  1638  [9].  —  Forasmuch  as  His  Maj- 
esty's Servants,  the  company  at  the  Blackfriars, 
have  by  special  command,  at  divers  times  within  the 
space  of  this  present  year  1638,  acted  24  plays  before 
His  Majesty,  six  whereof  have  been  performed  at 
Hampton-court  and  Richmond,  by  means  whereof 

1  Fleay  in   his   elaborate  studies   of  performances   at  Court 
ignores  it  entirely,  as  do  subsequent  scholars. 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         403 

they  were  not  only  at  the  loss  of  their  day  at  home, 
but  at  extraordinary  charges  by  traveling  and  car- 
riage of  their  goods,  in  consideration  whereof  they  are 
to  have  £20  apiece  for  those  plays,  and  £10  apiece 
for  the  other  18  acted  at  Whitehall,  which  in  the 
whole  amounted  to  the  sum  of  £300.  —  These  are 
therefore  to  pray  and  require  you  out  of  His  Majes- 
ty's treasure  in  your  charge  to  pay.  .  .  .* 

A  photographic  facsimile  of  this  interesting  doc- 
ument may  be  seen  in  The  Journal  of  the  British 
Archaeological  Association,  already  referred  to;  but 
for  the  convenience  of  those  who  do  not  read 
Elizabethan  script  with  ease,  I  have  reproduced  it 
in  type  facsimile  on  page  404. 

The  check-marks  at  the  left  were  probably  made 
by  the  clerk  in  the  Chamberlain's  office  to  ascertain 
how  many  times  the  players  "lost  their  day"  at 
their  house,  and  hence  were  entitled  to  £20  in  pay- 
ment. For  the  play  given  "  at  the  blackfriars  the 
23  of  Aprill  for  the  queene  "  (presumably  the  general 
public  was  excluded)  only  the  usual  £10  was  allowed. 

With  the  approach  of  the  civil  war,  the  Cockpit, 
like  the  public  theatres,  suffered  an  eclipse.  Sir 
Henry  Herbert  writes:  "On  Twelfth  Night,  1642, 
the  Prince  had  a  play  called  The  Scornful  Lady 
at  the  Cockpit;  but  the  King  and  Queen  were  not 
there,  and  it  was  the  only  play  acted  at  court  in 
the  whole  Christmas."  2  During  the  dark  days  that 
followed  we  hear  nothing  of  plays  in  the  Cockpit. 

1  Chalmers,  Apology,  p.  510. 

2  Herbert  MS.,  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  241. 


404    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 


before  the  king  &  queene  this 
yeare  of  our  lord  1638 

At  the  Cocpit  the  26  th   of  march The  lost  ladie 

At  the  Cocpit  the  27th  of  march Damboyes 

At  the  Cocpit  the  3d  of  A  prill Aglaura 

At  the  blackfryers  the  23  of  Aprill  for  the  queene    the  vnfortunate  lou  [en] 

At  the  Cocpit  the  2c/'1  of  may  the  princes  berthnight ould  Castel 

At  the  Cocpit  the  last  of  may  agayne  the vnfortunate  louer* 

At  Sumerset-house   the  iotD  of  July  &  our  day 

—  lost  at  our  house  mr  Carlels  play  the  first  part  of  the  pasionate  loueri 

—  At  Hamton  Court  the  30'"  of  September The  vnfortunate  louer [s] 

—  At  Richmount  the  6l     of  november  for  the  ladie 


lor  tne  ladie  1 

} — The  mery  divell  of  Edmontofn] 
at  our  house  > 


manes  berthnight  8c  the  day  lost 

At  the  Cocpit  the  8n    of  november The  fox 

At  the  Cocpit  the   13th  of  november Ceaser 

At  the  Cocpit  the  15"1  of  november The  mery  wifet  of  winter 

At  the  Cocpit  the  lo1"  of  november The  fayre  favorett 

At  the  Cocpit  the  22l"  of  november Chances 

At  the  Cocpit  the  27tn  of  november The  Costome  of  the  C[ountry] 

At  the  Cocpit  the  2Qtn  of  november ......The  northen  las 

At  the  Cocpit  the  6™  of  desember The  Spanish  Curatt 

At  the  Cocpit  the  n1*1  of  desember  agayne The  fayre  favorett 

At  the  Cocpit  the  l8tn   of  desember  m  Carlels 

play  agayne  the  first  part  of The  pasionate  louers 

At  the  Cocpit  the  20th  of  desember  the  2d  part  of The  pasionate  louen 

At  the  Cocpit  the  27  of  desember  the  2d  part  agayne  of  the  pasionate  loueri 

—  At  Richmount  the  28  of  desember  the  ladie  1 

I ....  The  northen  lai 
Elsabeths  berthnight  &  our  day  lost  at  our  house  ' 


—  At  Richmount  on  newyeares  day  » 

and  our  day  lost  at  our  house 

—  At  Richmount  the  71*1  of  Janeua 

and  our  day  lost  at  our  house 


j beggers  bush 


i The  Spanish  Cura[tt] 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         405 

Later  Cromwell  himself  occupied  this  section  of  the 
palace,  and  naturally  saw  to  it  that  no  dramatic 
exhibitions  were  held  there.  But  at  the  Restoration 
"  the  Prince,"  now  become  the  King,  could  have  his 
plays  again;  and  he  did  not  wait  long.  On  Novem- 
ber 20,  1660,  Edward  Gower  wrote  to  Sir  Richard 
Leveson:  "Yesternight  the  King,  Queen,  Princess, 
etc.,  supped  at  the  Duke  d'Albemarle's,  where  they 
had  The  Silent  Woman  acted  in  the  Cockpit."  l 
From  this  time  on  the  theatre  royal  was  in  constant 
use  for  the  entertainment  of  the  Court. 

Samuel  Pepys,  as  he  rose  in  the  world,  became  a 
frequent  visitor  there.2  In  the  absence  of  other  de- 
scriptions of  the  building,  I  subjoin  a  few  of  the  en- 
tries from  his  Diary.  Under  the  date  of  October  2, 
1662,  he  writes: 

At  night  by  coach  towards  Whitehall,  took  up  Mr. 
Moore  and  set  him  at  my  Lord's,  and  myself,  hearing 
that  there  was  a  play  at  the  Cockpit  (and  my  Lord 
Sandwich,  who  came  to  town  last  night,  at  it),  I  do 
go  thither,  and  by  very  great  fortune  did  follow  four 
or  five  gentlemen  who  were  carried  to  a  little  private 
door  in  a  wall,  and  so  crept  through  a  narrow  place 
and  come  into  one  of  the  boxes  next  the  King's,  but 
so  as  I  could  not  see  the  King  or  Queen,  but  many  of 
the  fine  ladies,  who  yet  are  really  not  so  handsome 

1  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  Fifth  Report,  p.  200. 
Pepys,  under  the  date  November  20,  1660,  gives  an  anecdote 
about  the  King's  behavior  on  this  occasion. 

'  He  first  "got  in"  on  April  20,  1661,  "by  the  favour  of  one 
Mr.  Bowman."  John  Evelyn  also  visited  the  Cockpit;  see  his 
Diary,  January  16  and  February  II,  1662. 


4o6     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

generally  as  I  used  to  take  them  to  be,  but  that  they 
are  finely  dressed.  Here  we  saw  The  Cardinal,1  a 
tragedy  I  had  never  seen  before,  nor  is  there  any 
great  matter  in  it.  The  company  that  came  in  with 
me  into  the  box  were  all  Frenchmen  that  could  speak 
no  English,  but  Lord!  what  sport  they  made  to  ask 
a  pretty  lady  that  they  got  among  them  that  under- 
stood both  French  and  English  to  make  her  tell  them 
what  the  actors  said. 

The  next  time  he  went  to  the  Cockpit,  on  No- 
vember 17,  1662,  he  did  not  have  to  creep  in  by 
stealth.  He  writes : 

At  Whitehall  by  appointment,  Mr.  Crew  carried 
my  wife  and  I  to  the  Cockpit,  and  we  had  excellent 
places,  and  saw  the  King,  Queen,  Duke  of  Mon- 
mouth, his  son,  and  my  Lady  Castlemaine,  and  all 
the  fine  ladies;  and  The  Scornful  Lady,  well  per- 
formed.  They  had  done  by  eleven  o'clock. 

The  fine  ladies,  as  usual,  made  a  deep  impression 
on  him,  as  did  the  "greatness  and  gallantry"  of  the 
audience.  On  December  1,  1662,  he  writes: 

This  done  we  broke  up,  and  I  to  the  Cockpit,  with 
much  crowding  and  waiting,  where  I  saw  The  Valiant 
Cid  2  acted,  a  play  I  have  read  with  great  delight,  but 
is  a  most  dull  thing  acted,  which  I  never  understood 
before,  there  being  no  pleasure  in  it,  though  done  by 
Betterton  and  by  Ianthe,3  and  another  fine  wench 
that  is  come  in  the  room  of  Roxalana;  nor  did  the 
King  or  Queen  once  smile  all  the  whole  play,  nor  any 
of  the  company  seem  to  take  any  pleasure  but  what 
was  in  the  greatness  and  gallantry  of  the  company. 

1  By  James  Shirley,  licensed  1641. 

2  By  Corneille.  3  Mrs.  Betterton. 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         407 


THE  COCKPIT-IN-COURT 

From  an  engraving  by  Mazell  in  Pennant's  London.  Mr.  W.  L.  Spiers,  who 
reproduces  this  engraving  in  the  London  Topographical  Record  (1903),  says  that 
it  is  "  undated,  but  probably  copied  from  a  contemporary  drawing  of  the  sev- 
enteenth century." 

Thence  .  .  .  home,   and   got  thither  by   12  o'clock, 
knocked  up  my  boy,  and  put  myself  to  bed. 

Two  entries,  from  an  entirely  different  source, 
must  suffice  for  this  history  of  the  Cockpit.  In  the 
Paper-Office  Chalmers  discovered  a  record  of  the 
following  payments,  made  in  1667: 

To  the  Keeper  of  the  theatre  at  Whitehall,  £30. 
To  the  same  for  Keeping  clean  that  place,  p.  ann.  £6.1 

1  Chalmers,  Apology,  p.  530.  Cunningham  says,  in  his  Hand- 
book of  London:  "I  find  in  the  records  of  the  Audit  Office  a  pay- 
ment of  £30  per  annum  'to  the  Keeper  of  our  Playhouse  called 
the  Cockpit  in  St.  James  Park'  ";  but  he  does  not  state  the  year 
in  which  the  payment  was  made. 


4o8     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

And  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Accounts  is  pre- 
served the  following  warrant : 

1674,  March  27.  Warrant  to  deliver  to  Monsieur 
Grabu,  or  to  such  as  he  shall  appoint,  such  of  the 
scenes  remaining  in  the  theatre  at  Whitehall  as  shall 
be  useful  for  the  French  Opera  at  the  theatre  in 
Bridges  Street,  and  the  said  Monsieur  to  return  them 
again  safely  after  14  days'  time  to  the  theatre  at 
Whitehall.1 

What  became  of  the  theatre  at  Whitehall  I  have 
not  been  able  to  ascertain.2   Presumably,  after  the 

1  I  quote  from  W.  J.  Lawrence,  The  Elizabethan  Playhouse 
(First  Series),  p.  144. 

2  The  reasons  why  the  Cockpit  at  Whitehall  has  remained  so 
long  in  obscurity  (its  history  is  here  attempted  for  the  first  time) 
are  obvious.  Some  scholars  have  confused  it  with  the  public 
playhouse  of  the  same  name,  a  confusion  which  persons  in  the 
days  of  Charles  avoided  by  invariably  saying  "The  Cockpit  in 
Drury  Lane."  Other  scholars  have  confused  it  with  the  residen- 
tial section  of  Whitehall  which  bore  the  same  name.  During  the 
reign  of  James  several  large  buildings  which  had  been  erected 
either  on  the  site  of  the  old  cockpit  of  Henry  VIII,  or  around  it, 
were  converted  into  lodgings  for  members  of  the  royal  family  or 
favorites  of  the  King,  and  were  commonly  referred  to  as  "the 
Cockpit."  Other  scholars  have  assumed  that  all  plays  during  the 
reigns  of  Elizabeth,  James,  and  Charles  were  given  either  in  the 
Banqueting  House  or  in  the  Great  Hall.  Finally,  still  other  schol- 
ars (e.g.,  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  in  Shakespeare's  England,  1916)  have 
confused  the  Cockpit  at  Whitehall  with  the  Royal  Cockpit  in 
St.  James's  Park.  Exactly  when  the  latter  was  built  I  have  not 
been  able  to  discover,  but  it  was  probably  erected  near  the  close 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  It  stood  at  the  end  of  Dartmouth 
Street,  adjacent  to  Birdcage  Walk,  but  not  in  the  Park  itself. 
John  Strype,  in  his  edition  of  Stow's  Survey  (1720),  bk.  vi,  p.  64, 
says  of  Dartmouth  Street:  "And  here  is  a  very  fine  Cockpit, 
called  the  King's  Cockpit,  well  resorted  unto."  A  picture  of  the 
building  is  given  by  Strype  on  page  62,  and  a  still  better  picture 
may  be  found  in  J.  T.  Smith's  The  Antiquities  of  Westminster. 


THE   COCKPIT-IN-COURT         409 

fire  of  January,  1698,  which  destroyed  the  greater 
part  of  the  palace  and  drove  the  royal  family  to 
seek  quarters  elsewhere,  the  building  along  with 
the  rest  of  the  Cockpit  section  was  made  over  into 
the  Privy  Council  offices. 

The  Royal  Cockpit  in  Dartmouth  Street  survived  until  1816, 
when  it  was  torn  down.  Hogarth,  in  his  famous  representation  of 
a  cock-fight,  shows  its  interior  as  circular,  and  as  embellished 
with  the  royal  coat  of  arms.  Another  interesting  picture  of  the 
interior  will  be  found  in  Ackermann's  The  Microcosm  of  London 
(1808).  It  is  needless  to  add  that  this  building  had  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  the  theatre  royal  of  the  days  of  King  Charles. 


I 


CHAPTER  XXI 
MISCELLANEOUS 


Wolf's  Theatre  in  Nightingale  Lane,  near 
East  Smithfield 

N  JeafTreson's  Middlesex  County  Records  (i,  260), 
we  find  the  following  entry,  dated  April  1,  1600: 


1  April,  42  Elizabeth.  —  Recognizance,  taken  be- 
fore Sir  John  Peyton  knt.,  Lieutenant  of  the  Tower 
of  London,  and  Thomas  Fowler,  Tobias  Woode, 
Edward  Vaghan  and  Henry  Thoresby  esqs.,  Justices 
of  the  Peace,  of  John  Wolf,  of  Eastsmithfield,  co. 
Midd.,  stationer,  in  the  sum  of  forty  pounds;  The 
condition  of  the  recognizance  being  "that,  whereas 
the  above-bounden  John  Wolf  hath  begun  to  erect 
and  build  a  playhouse  in  Nightingale  Lane  near  East 
Smithfield  aforesaid,  contrary  to  Her  Majesty's  proc- 
lamation and  orders  set  down  in  Her  Highness's 
Court  of  Starchamber.  If  therefore  the  said  John 
Wolf  do  not  proceed  any  further  in  building  or  erect- 
ing of  the  same  playhouse,  unless  he  shall  procure 
sufficient  warrant  from  the  Rt.  Honourable  the  Lords 
of  Her  Majesty's  most  honourable  Privy  Council  for 
further  .  .  .  then  this  recognizance  to  be  void,  or  else 
to  remain  in  full  force." 

The  only  stationer  in  London  named  John  Wolf 
was  the  printer  and  publisher  who  at  this  time  had 


WOLFS   THEATRE  411 

his  shop  in  Pope's  Head  Alley,  Lombard  Street. 
For  several  reasons  he  is  well  known  to  bibliog- 
raphers; and  his  strong  personality  and  tireless  en- 
ergy might  easily  have  led  him  into  the  field  of  the 
theatre.  For  many  years  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Fishmongers'  Company,  to  which  also,  in  all  prob- 
ability, his  father  had  belonged.  After  a  ten  years' 
apprenticeship  with  the  eminent  printer,  John  Day, 
he  spent  several  years  abroad  "gadding  from  coun- 
try to  country,"  but  learning  the  printing  trade 
from  the  best  establishments  on  the  Continent.  His 
longest  stay  was  in  Italy,  where  he  was  connected 
with  the  printing-office  of  the  Giunti,  and  also,  it 
seems,  of  Gabriel  Giolito.  In  1576  he  printed  two 
Rappresentazioni,  "  ad  instanzia  di  Giovanni  Vuolfio, 
Inglese."  About  the  year  1579  he  established  him- 
self in  London  (where  he  was  dubbed  by  his  fellows 
"Machiavel"),  and  began  an  energetic  warfare  on 
the  monopolies  secured  by  certain  favored  printers. 
The  fact  that  he  was  for  a  time  "  committed  to  the 
Clink"  failed  to  deter  him.  We  are  told  that  he 
"affirmed  openly  in  the  Stationers'  Hall  that  it  was 
lawful  for  all  men  to  print  all  lawful  books,  what 
commandment  soever  Her  Majesty  gave  to  the  con- 
trary." And  being  "admonished  that  he,  being  but 
one,  so  mean  a  man,  should  not  presume  to  con- 
trary Her  Highness'  government:  'Tush,'  said  he, 
'Luther  was  but  one  man,  and  reformed  all  the 
world  for  religion,  and  I  am  that  one  man  that  must 
and  will  reform  the  government  in  this  trade.'"  The 


4i2     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

courage  and  energy  here  revealed  characterized 
his  entire  life.  In  1583  he  was  admitted  a  freeman 
of  the  Company  of  Stationers.  In  1593  he  was 
elected  Printer  to  the  City.  In  the  spring  of  1600 
he  was  in  serious  difficulties  with  the  authorities 
over  the  printing  of  John  Hayward's  Life  and  Raigne 
of  King  Henrie  IV,  and  was  forced  to  spend  two 
weeks  in  jail.  He  died  in  1601.1 

If  this  "John  Wolf,  stationer,"  be  the  man  who 
started  to  erect  a  playhouse  in  East  Smithfield,  it 
is  to  be  regretted  that  we  do  not  know  more  about 
the  causes  which  led  him  into  the  undertaking. 

II 

The  Projected  "Amphitheatre" 

In  1620  John  Cotton,  John  Williams,  and  Thomas 
Dixon 2  secured  from  King  James  a  license  to  build 

1  For  the  life  of  John  Wolf  see  the  following:  Edward  Arber, 
A  Transcript  of  the  Stationers'  Registers,  especially  n,  779-93 ;  The 
Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1508-1601,  pp.  405,  449,  450; 
A.  Gerber,  All  of  the  Five  Fictitious  Italian  Editions,  etc.  (in  Mod- 
ern Language  Notes,  xxn  (1907),  2,  129,  201);  H.  R.  Plomer,  An 
Examination  of  Some  Existing  Copies  of  Hayward's  "Life  and 
Raigne  of  King  Henrie  IV"  (in  The  Library,  N.S.,  m  (1902),  13); 
R.  B.  McKerrow,  A  Dictionary  of  Printers  and  Booksellers  .  .  . 
1557-164.0;  S.  Bongi,  Annali  di  Gabriel  Giolito  de'  Ferrari. 

2  Of  these  men  nothing  is  known;  something,  however,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  following  entries  in  Sir  Henry  Herbert's  Office- 
Book:  "On  the  20th  August,  1623,  a  license  gratis,  to  John  Wil- 
liams and  four  others,  to  make  show  of  an  Elephant,  for  a  year;  on 
the  5th  of  September  to  make  show  of  a  live  Beaver;  on  the  9th  of 
June,  1638,  to  make  show  of  an  outlandish  creature,  called  a  PoS' 
sum."   (George  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology,  p.  208.) 


THE   PROJECTED   AMPHITHEATRE   413 

an  amphitheatre  *  "  intended  principally  for  mar- 
tiall  exercises,  and  extraordinary  shows  and  solem- 
nities for  ambassadors,  and  persons  of  honor  and 
quality,"  with  the  power  granted  to  the  owners  to 
order  "a  cessation  from  other  shows  and  sports, 
for  one  day  in  a  month  only,  upon  fourteen  days' 
warning." 

But  for  some  reason  the  King  suddenly  changed 
his  mind,  and  on  September  29,  1620,  he  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  Privy  Council  directing  them  to  can- 
cel the  license:2 

Right  trusty  and  right  well-beloved  Cousins  and 
Councellors,  and  right  trusty  and  well-beloved  Coun- 
cellors,  we  greet  you  well.  Whereas  at  the  humble 
suit  of  our  servants  John  Cotton,  John  Williams,  and 
Thomas  Dixon,  and  in  recompence  of  their  services, 
we  have  been  pleased  to  license  them  to  build  an  Am- 
phitheatre, which  hath  passed  our  Signet  and  is 
stayed  at  our  Privy  Seal;  and  finding  therein  con- 
tained some  such  words  and  clauses,  as  may,  in  some 
constructions,  seem  to  give  them  greater  liberty  both 
in  point  of  building  and  using  of  exercises  than  is 
any  way  to  be  permitted,  or  was  ever  by  us  intended, 
we  have  thought  fit  to  command  and  give  authority 
unto  you,  or  any  four  of  you,  to  cause  that  already 
passed  to  be  cancelled,  and  to  give  order  unto  our 
Solicitor  General  for  the  drawing  up  of  a  new  warrant 
for  our  signature  to  the  same  parties,  according  to 

1  The  place  is  not  indicated,  but  it  was  probably  outside  the 
city. 

2  See  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1619-1623,  p.  181.  I  have  quoted 
the  letter  from  Collier,  The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry 
(1879),  1,  408. 


414     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

such  directions  and  reservations  as  herewith  we  send 
you.  Wherein  we  are  more  particular,  both  in  the 
affirmative  and  the  negative,  to  the  end  that,  as  on 
one  side  we  would  have  nothing  pass  us  to  remain 
upon  record  which  either  for  the  form  might  not  be- 
come us  or  for  the  substance  might  cross  our  many 
proclamations  (pursued  with  good  success)  for  build- 
ings, or,  on  the  other  side,  might  give  them  cause  to 
importune  us  after  they  had  been  at  charges;  to 
which  end  we  wish  that  you  call  them  before  you  and 
let  them  know  our  pleasure  and  resolution  therein. 

Accordingly  the  license  was  canceled,  and  no  new 
license  was  issued. 

In  1626,  however,  John  Williams  and  Thomas 
Dixon  (what  had  become  of  John  Cotton  we  do  not 
know)  made  an  attempt  to  secure  a  license  from 
King  Charles,  then  newly  come  to  the  throne,  to 
erect  an  amphitheatre  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields. 
Apparently  they  so  worded  the  proposed  grant 
as  to  authorize  them  to  present  in  their  amphi- 
theatre not  only  spectacles,  but  dramatic  perform- 
ances and  animal-baitings  as  well,  with  the  power 
to  restrain  all  other  places  of  amusement  for  one 
day  in  each  week,  on  giving  two  days'  warning. 

A  "bill"  to  this  effect  was  drawn  up  and  sub- 
mitted to  Thomas  Coventry,  the  Lord  Keeper,  who 
examined  it  hastily,  and  dispatched  it  to  Lord 
Conway  with  the  following  letter: ! 

My  very  good  Lord,  —  I  have  perused  this  Bill,  an^ 
do  call  to  mind  that  about  three  or  four  years  past 

1  Collier,  op.  cit.,  1,  443. 


THE   PROJECTED  AMPHITHEATRE    415 

when  I  was  Attorney  General,  a  patent  for  an  Amphi- 
theatre was  in  hand  to  have  passed;  but  upon  this 
sudden,  without  search  of  my  papers,  I  cannot  give 
your  lordship  any  account  of  the  true  cause  wherefore 
it  did  not  pass,  nor  whether  that  and  this  do  vary  in 
substance:  neither  am  I  apt  upon  a  sudden  to  take 
impertinent  exceptions  to  anything  that  is  to  pass, 
much  less  to  a  thing  that  is  recommended  by  so  good 
a  friend.  But  if  upon  perusal  of  my  papers  which 
I  had  while  I  was  Attorney,  or  upon  more  serious 
thoughts,  I  shall  observe  anything  worthy  to  be 
represented  to  His  Majesty,  or  to  the  Council,  I  shall 
then  acquaint  your  lordship;  and  in  the  meantime  I 
would  be  loath  to  be  the  author  of  a  motion  to  His 
Majesty  to  stay  it:  but  if  you  find  His  Majesty  at 
fitting  leisure,  to  move  him  that  he  will  give  leave  to 
think  of  it  in  this  sort  as  I  have  written,  it  may  do 
well;  and  I  assure  your  lordship,  unless  I  find  matter 
of  more  consequence  than  I  observe  on  this  sudden, 
it  is  not  like  to  be  stayed.  And  so  I  rest  your  lord- 
ship's very  assured  to  do  you  service, 

Tho.  Coventrye,  Ch. 

CANBURY,   12  August,  1626. 

Apparently  some  very  influential  person  was  urg- 
ing the  passage  of  the  bill.  But  the  scheme  soon 
evoked  the  bitter  opposition  of  the  various  troupes 
of  players,  and  of  the  owners  of  the  various  theatres 
and  other  places  of  amusement.  An  echo  of  the 
quarrel  is  found  in  Marmion's  Holland's  Leaguer, 
11,  iii: 

Twill  dead  all  my  device  in  making  matches, 
My  plots  of  architecture,  and  erecting 
New  amphitheatres  to  draw  custom 


4i 6     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

From  playhouses  once  a  week,  and  so  pull 

A  curse  upon  my  head  from  the  poor  scoundrels.1 

The  "poor  scoundrels"  —  i.e.,  the  players  — 
seem  to  have  caused  the  authorities  to  examine  the 
bill  more  closely;  and  on  September  28,  1626,  the 
Lord  Keeper  sent  to  Lord  Conway  a  second  letter 
in  which  he  condemned  the  measure  in  strong 
terms : 2 

My  Lord,  —  According  to  His  Majesty's  good 
pleasure,  which  I  received  from  your  lordship,  I  have 
considered  of  the  grant  desired  by  John  Williams  and 
Thomas  Dixon  for  building  an  Amphitheatre  in  Lin- 
coln's Inn  Fields;  and  comparing  it  with  that  which 
was  propounded  in  King  James  his  time,  do  find 
much  difference  between  them:  for  that  former  was 
intended  principally  for  martiall  exercises,  and  extra- 
ordinary shows,  and  solemnities  for  ambassadors  and 
persons  of  honor  and  quality,  with  a  cessation  from 
other  shows  and  sports  for  one  day  in  a  month  only, 
upon  14  days'  warning:  whereas  by  this  new  grant  I 
see  little  probability  of  anything  to  be  used  but  com- 
mon plays,  or  ordinary  sports  now  used  or  showed  at 
the  Bear  Garden  or  the  common  playhouses  about 
London,  for  all  sorts  of  beholders,  with  a  restraint  to 
all  other  plays  and  shows  for  one  day  in  the  week 
upon  two  days'  warning:  with  liberty  to  erect  their 
buildings  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  where  there  are  too 

1  The  Dramatic  Works  of  Shackerley  Marmion,  in  Dramatists  of 
the  Restoration,  p.  37.  Fleay  {A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  Eng- 
lish Drama,  II,  66)  suggests  that  the  impostors  Agurtes  and  Auto- 
lichus  are  meant  to  satirize  Williams  and  Dixon  respectively. 

2  I  quote  the  letter  from  Collier,  The  History  of  English  Drama- 
tic Poetry  (1879),  I,  444. 


OGILBY'S   DUBLIN   THEATRE     417 

many  buildings  already;  and  which  place  in  the  late 
King's  time  upon  a  petition  exhibited  by  the  Prince's 
comedians  for  setting  up  a  playhouse  there,  was  cer- 
tified by  eleven  Justices  of  Peace  under  their  hands  to 
be  very  inconvenient.  And  therefore,  not  holding  this 
new  grant  fit  to  pass,  as  being  no  other  in  effect  but 
to  translate  the  playhouses  and  Bear  Garden  from 
the  Bankside  to  a  place  much  more  unfit,  I  thought 
fit  to  give  your  lordship  these  reasons  for  it;  where- 
withal you  may  please  to  acquaint  His  Majesty,  if 
there  shall  be  cause.  And  so  remain  your  lordship's 
very  assured  friend  to  do  you  service, 

Tho.  Coventrye. 

Canbury,  28  Sept.,  1626. 
Lo.  Conway. 

On  the  letter  Lord  Conway  has  written  the  in- 
dorsement: "That  it  is  unfit  the  grant  for  the 
Amphitheatre  should  passe."  And  such,  no  doubt, 
was  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  Privy  Council,  for 
we  hear  nothing  more  of  the  project. 

Ill 

Ogilby's  Dublin  Theatre 

In  1635  a  playhouse  was  opened  in  Dublin  by 
John  Ogilby,  —  dancing-master,  theatrical  man- 
ager, playwright,  scholar,  translator,  poet,  —  now 
best  known,  perhaps,  for  the  ridicule  he  inspired 
in  Dryden's  MacFlecknoe  and  Pope's  Dunciad.  At 
the  beginning  of  his  versatile  career  he  was  a  suc- 
cessful London  dancing-master,  popular  with  "the 
nobility  and  gentry."   When  Thomas  Earl  of  Straf- 


4i  8     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

ford  was  appointed  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  he 
took  Ogilby  with  him  to  Dublin,  to  teach  his  wife 
and  children  the  art  of  dancing,  and  also  to  help 
with  the  secretarial  duties.  Under  Strafford's  pat- 
ronage, Ogilby  was  appointed  to  the  post  of  Master 
of  the  Revels  for  Ireland;  and  in  this  capacity  he 
built  a  small  playhouse  in  Dublin  and  began  to 
cultivate  dramatic  representations  after  the  manner 
of  London.  Anthony  a  Wood  in  Athence  Oxonienses, 
says: 

He  built  a  little  theatre  to  act  plays  in,  in  St.  War- 
burg's street  in  Dublin,  and  was  then  and  there 
valued  by  all  ingenious  men  for  his  great  industry  in 
promoting  morality  and  ingenuity.1 

Aubrey  writes: 

He  had  a  warrant  from  the  Lord  Lieutenant  to  be 
Master  of  the  Ceremonies  for  that  kingdom;  and 
built  a  pretty  2  little  theatre  in  St.  Warburgh  Street 
in  Dublin. 

The  history  of  this  "little  theatre"  is  not  known 
in  detail.  For  its  actors  Ogilby  himself  wrote  at 
least  one  play,  entitled  The  Merchant  of  Dublin,3 
and  Henry  Burnell  a  tragi-comedy  entitled  Land- 
gartha,  printed  in  1641  "as  it  was  presented  in  the 

1  Bliss's  edition,  m,  741. 

2  "Pretty  little  theatre"  is  the  reading  of  MS.  Aubr.  7,  folio 
20;  MS.  Aubr.  8  omits  the  adjective  "pretty."  For  Aubrey's 
full  account  of  Ogilby  see  Andrew  Clark's  Brief  Lives  (1898), 
2  vols. 

3  Aubrey  mentions  this  as  having  been  "written  in  Dublin,  and 
never  printed." 


OGILBY'S   DUBLIN   THEATRE     419 

new  theatre  in  Dublin  with  good  applause."  But 
its  chief  playwright  was  James  Shirley,  who  came 
to  Dublin  in  1636  under  the  patronage  of  the  Earl 
of  Kildare.  For  the  Irish  stage  he  wrote  The 
Royal  Master,  published  in  1638  as  "acted  in  the 
new  theatre  in  Dublin";  Rosania,  or  Love's  Victory, 
now  known  as  The  Doubtful  Heir,  under  which  title 
it  was  later  printed;  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland; l  and  in 
all  probability  The  Constant  Maid}  The  actors, 
however,  had  little  need  to  buy  original  plays,  for 
they  were  free,  no  doubt,  to  take  any  of  the  nu- 
merous London  successes.  From  Shirley's  Poems 
we  learn  that  they  were  presenting  Jonson's  Al- 
chemist, Middleton's  No  Wit,  two  of  Fletcher's 
plays,  unnamed,  and  two  anonymous  plays  en- 
titled The  Toy  and  77k?  General;  and  we  may  fairly 
assume  that  they  honored  several  of  Shirley's  early 
plays  in  the  same  way. 

The  theatre  came  to  a  sudden  end  with  the  out- 
break of  the  rebellion  in  1641.  In  October  the 
Lords  Justices  prohibited  playing  there;  and  shortly 
after,  we  are  told,  the  building  was  "ruined  and 
spoiled)  and  a  cow-house  made  of  the  stage." 3 

1  Published  in  1640  as  "the  first  part,"  and  both  the  Prologue 
and  the  Epilogue  speak  of  a  second  part;  but  no  second  part  was 
printed,  and  in  all  probability  it  never  was  written. 

2  Never  licensed  for  England;  reprinted  in  1657  with  St. 
Patrick  for  Ireland. 

3  MS.  Aubr.  7,  folio  20  v.  Ogilby's  second  theatre  in  Dublin, 
built  after  the  Restoration,  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the 
present  work. 


42o     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

IV 

The  French  Players'  Temporary  Theatre 
in  Drury  Lane 

In  February,  1635,  a  company  of  French  players, 
under  the  leadership  of  the  eminent  actor,  Josias 
de  Soulas,  better  known  by  his  stage-name  of 
Floridor,1  appeared  in  London,  and  won  such  favor 
at  Court  that  they  were  ultimately  allowed  to  fit 
up  a  house  in  Drury  Lane  for  a  temporary  theatre. 
The  history  of  these  players  is  mainly  found  in 
the  records  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels  and  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain.  From  the  former,  Malone  has 
preserved  the  following  entries  by  Herbert : 

On  Tuesday  night  the  17  of  February,  1634  [i.e., 
1635],  a  French  company  of  players,  being  approved 
of  by  the  Queen  at  her  house  two  nights  before,  and 
commended  by  Her  Majesty  to  the  King,  were  ad- 
mitted to  the  Cockpitt  in  Whitehall,  and  there  pre- 
sented the  King  and  Queen  with  a  French  comedy 
called  Melise,2  with  good  approbation:  for  which  play 
the  King  gave  them  ten  pounds. 

This  day  being  Friday,  and  the  20  of  the  same 
month,  the  King  told  me  his  pleasure,  and  com- 
manded me  to  give  order  that  this  French  company 

1  See  Frederick  Hawkins,  Annals  of  the  French  Stage  (1884), 
1, 148  ff.,  for  the  career  of  this  player  on  the  French  stage.  "Every 
gift  required  by  the  actor,"  says  Hawkins,  "was  possessed  by 
Floridor." 

2  La  Melise,  ou  Les  Princes  Reconnus,  by  Du  Rocher,  first  acted 
in  Paris  in  1633;  see  The  Athenceum,  July  II,  1891,  p.  73;  and  cf. 
ibid.,  p.  139. 


FRENCH   PLAYERS'   THEATRE    421 

should  play  the  two  sermon  days  in  the  week  during 
their  time  of  playing  in  Lent  [i.e.,  Wednesdays  and 
Fridays,  on  which  days  during  Lent  the  English  com- 
panies were  not  allowed  to  play],  and  in  the  house  of 
Drury  Lane  [i.e.,  the  Cockpit  Playhouse],  where  the 
Queen's  Players  usually  play.  The  King's  pleasure  I 
signified  to  Mr.  Beeston  [the  manager  of  the  Cockpit] 
the  same  day,  who  obeyed  readily.  The  housekeepers 
are  to  give  them  by  promise  the  benefit  of  their  inter- 
est x  for  the  two  days  of  the  first  week.  They  had  the 
benefit  of  playing  on  the  sermon  days,  and  got  two 
hundred  pounds  at  least;  besides  many  rich  clothes 
were  given  them.  They  had  freely  to  themselves  the 
whole  week  before  the  week  before  Easter,2  which  I 
obtained  of  the  King  for  them. 

The  use  of  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane  came  to  an 
end  at  Easter,  for  the  Queen's  own  troupe,  under 
Beeston's  management,  regularly  occupied  that  build- 
ing. But  the  King  summoned  the  French  players 
to  act  at  Court  on  several  occasions.  Thus  Herbert 
records : 

The  4  April,  on  Easter  Monday,3  they  played  the 
Trompeur  Puny 4  with  better  approbation  than  the 
other. 

1  "Housekeepers"  were  owners,  who  always  demanded  of  the 
players  as  rental  for  the  building  a  certain  part  of  each  day's  tak- 
ings. The  passage  quoted  means  that  the  housekeepers  allowed 
the  French  players  to  receive  all  money  taken  on  the  two  sermon 
days  of  the  first  week,  and  after  that  exacted  their  usual  share  as 
rental  for  the  building. 

2  That  is,  Passion  Week,  during  which  time  the  English  com- 
panies were  never  allowed  to  give  performances. 

3  This  must  be  an  error,  for  Easter  Monday  fell  on  March  30. 

4  Le  Trompeur  Puni,  ou  Histoire  Septentrionale,  by  Scuderi. 


422     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

On  Wednesday  night,  the  16  April,1  1635,  the 
French  played  Alcimedor  2  with  good  approbation.8 

Clearly  these  actors  were  in  high  favor  at  Court. 
Sir  Henry,  who  did  not  as  a  rule  show  any  hesitancy 
in  accepting  fees,  notes  in  the  margin  of  his  book: 
"The  French  offered  me  a  present  of  £10;  but  I 
refused  it,  and  did  them  many  other  courtesies 
gratis  to  render  the  Queen  my  mistress  an  accepta- 
ble service."  In  view  of  this  royal  favor,  it  is  not 
surprising  to  find  that,  after  they  were  driven  from 
the  Cockpit,  they  received  permission  to  fit  up  a 
temporary  playhouse  in  the  manage,  or  riding- 
school,  of  one  M.  Le  Febure,  in  Drury  Lane.  The 
Lord  Chamberlain's  Office-Book  contains  the  fol- 
lowing entry  on  the  subject: 

18  April,  1635:  His  Majesty  hath  commanded  me 
to  signify  his  royal  pleasure  that  the  French  comedi- 
ans (having  agreed  with  Mons.  le  Febure)  may  erect 
a  stage,  scaffolds,  and  seats,  and  all  other  accommoda- 
tions which  shall  be  convenient,  and  act  and  present 
interludes  and  stage  plays  at  his  house  [and  manage 4] 
in  Drury  Lane,  during  His  Majesty's  pleasure,  with- 
out any  disturbance,  hindrance,  or  interruption.  And 
this  shall  be  to  them,  and  Mr.  le  Febure,  and  to  all 
others,  a  sufficient  discharge,  &c.5 

1  Wednesday  was  the  15th.  2  Alcimedon,  by  Duryer. 

3  Malone,  Variorum,  in,  121,  note. 

*  This  clause  I  insert  from  Mrs.  Stopes's  notes  on  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  records,  in  the  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  97. 

6  I  have  chosen  to  reproduce  the  record  from  Chalmers's 
Apology,  p.  506,  note  s,  rather  than  from  Mrs.  Stopes's  apparently 
less  accurate  notes  in  the  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  97. 


FRENCH   PLAYERS'   THEATRE    423 

Apparently  the  players  lost  little  time  in  fitting 
up  the  building,  for  we  read  in  Herbert's  Office- 
Book: 

A  warrant  granted  to  Josias  D'Aunay,1  Hurfries  de 
Lau,  and  others,  for  to  act  plays  at  a  new  house  in 
Drury  Lane,  during  pleasure,  the  5  May,  1635. 

The  King  was  pleased  to  command  my  Lord  Cham- 
berlain to  direct  his  warrant  to  Monsieur  Le  Fevure, 
to  give  him  a  power  to  contract  with  the  Frenchmen 
for  to  build  a  playhouse  in  the  manage-house,  which 
was  done  accordingly  by  my  advice  and  allowance.2 

In  Glapthorne's  The  Ladies'  Priviledge  is  a  good- 
natured  allusion  to  the  French  Company  and  their 
vivacious  style  of  acting : 3 

La.   But,  Adorni, 
What  think  you  of  the  French? 

Ador.   Very  airy  people,  who  participate 
More  fire  than  earth;  yet  generally  good, 
And  nobly  disposition'd,  something  inclining 
To  over-weening  fancy.  This  lady 
Tells  my  remembrance  of  a  comic  scene 
I  once  saw  in  their  Theatre. 

Bon.   Add  it  to 
Your  former  courtesies,  and  express  it. 

Whereupon,  according  to  the  stage  direction,  Adorni 
"acts  furiously." 

In  the  margin  of  his  Office-Book  Sir  Henry  Her- 
bert writes  complacently:  "These  Frenchmen  were 

1  Should  we  place  a  comma  after  "Josias"?  That  "Josias 
Floridor"  was  the  leader  of  the  troupe  we  know  from  two  sepa- 
rate entries;  cf.  Chalmers,  Apology,  pp.  508,  509. 

2  Malone,  Variorum,  m,  122,  note. 

J  Act  11,  Scene  i.  This  passage  is  pointed  out  by  Lawrence,  The 
Elizabethan  Playhouse,  p.  137. 


424    SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

commended  unto  me  by  the  Queen,  and  have  passed 
through  my  hands  gratis."  This  was  indeed  a  rare 
favor  from  Herbert;  but  they  did  not  so  easily  es- 
cape his  deputy,  William  Blagrove,  who  accepted 
from  them  the  sum  of  "  three  pounds  for  his  pains." 
How  long  the  French  actors  occupied  their  tem- 
porary playhouse  in  Drury  Lane  is  not  clear.  In 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's  book  we  find  an  entry 
showing  that  they  presented  a  play  at  Court  in 
December,  1635:  "Warrant  to  pay  £10  to  Josias 
Floridor  for  himself  and  the  rest  of  the  French 
players  for  a  tragedy  by  them  played  before  His 
Majesty  Dec.  last."1  The  entry  is  dated  January 
8,  1636,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  discover,  this  is  the 
last  reference  to  the  French  players  in  London. 
We  may  suppose  that  shortly  after  this  they  re- 
turned to  Paris. 


Davenant's  Projected  Theatre 
in  Fleet  Street 

On  March  26,  1639,  William  Davenant,  who  had 
succeeded  Ben  Jonson  as  Poet  Laureate,  secured 
from  King  Charles  a  royal  patent  under  the  Great 
Seal  of  England  to  erect  a  playhouse  in  Fleet  Street, 
to  be  used  not  only  for  regular  plays,  but  also  for 
"musical  entertainments"  and  "scenic  representa- 
tions." Davenant,  as  we  know,  was  especially  inter- 
1  Stopes,  op.  cit.,  p.  98,,  Chalmers,  Apology,  p.  509. 


A   PROJECTED   THEATRE         425 

ested  in  "the  art  of  perspective  in  scenes,"  and 
also  in  the  Italian  opera  musicale.  The  royal  patent 
—  unusually  verbose  even  for  a  patent —  is  printed 
in  full  in  Rymer's  Fcedera,  xx,  377;  I  cite  below  all 
the  essential  passages : 

[The  Building.]  Know  ye,  that  we,  of  our  especial 
grace,  certain  knowledge,  and  meere  motion,  and 
upon  the  humble  petition  of  our  servant  William 
Davenant,  gentleman,  have  given  and  granted,  and  by 
these  presents,  for  us,  our  heirs,  and  successors,  do 
give  and  grant  unto  the  said  William  Davenant,  his 
heirs,  executors,  administrators,  and  assigns,  full 
power,  license,  and  authority  ...  to  frame,  new- 
build,  and  set  up  ...  a  Theatre  or  Playhouse,  with 
necessary  tiring  and  retiring  rooms,  and  other  places 
convenient,  containing  in  the  whole  forty  yards 
square  at  the  most,1  wherein  plays,  musical  enter- 
tainments, scenes,  or  other  like  presentments  may  be 
presented  ...  so  as  the  outwalls  of  the  said  Theatre 
or  Playhouse,  tiring  or  retiring  rooms,  be  made  or 
built  of  brick  or  stone,  according  to  the  tenor  of  our 
proclamations  in  that  behalf. 

[Its  Location.]  Upon  a  parcel  of  ground  lying  near 
unto  or  behind  the  Three  Kings  Ordinary  in  Fleet 
Street,  in  the  parishes  of  Saint  Dunstan's  in  the  West, 
London,  or  in  Saint  Bride's,  London,  or  in  either  of 
them;  or  in  any  other  ground  in  or  about  that  place, 
or  in  the  whole  street  aforesaid,  already  allotted  to 
him  for  that  use,  or  in  any  other  place  that  is  or  here- 
after shall  be  assigned  or  allotted  out  to  the  said 

1  The  Fortune  was  only  eighty  feet  square,  but  the  stage  pro- 
jected to  the  middle  of  the  yard.  Davenant  probably  wished  to 
provide  for  an  alcove  stage  of  sufficient  depth  to  accommodate 
his  "  scenes." 


426     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

William  Davenant  by  our  right  trusty  and  right  well- 
beloved  cousin  and  counsellor  Thomas,  Earl  of  Arun- 
del and  Surrey,  Earl  Marshall  of  England,  or  any 
other  of  our  commissioners  for  building  for  that  time 
being  in  that  behalf. 

[Its  Uses.]  And  we  do  hereby,  for  us,  our  heirs,  and 
successors,  grant  to  the  said  William  Davenant,  his 
heirs,  executors,  administrators,  and  assigns,  that  it 
shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and  for  him,  the  said 
William  Davenant,  his  heirs,  executors,  administra- 
tors, and  assigns,  from  time  to  time  to  gather  to- 
gether, entertain,  govern,  privilege,  and  keep,  such 
and  so  many  players  and  persons,  to  exercise  action, 
musical  presentments,  scenes,  dancing,  and  the  like, 
as  he,  the  said  William  Davenant,  his  heirs,  executors, 
administrators,  and  assigns  shall  think  fit  and  ap- 
prove for  the  said  house;  and  such  persons  to  permit 
and  continue  at  and  during  the  pleasure  of  the  said 
William  Davenant,  his  heirs,  executors,  administra- 
tors, and  assigns,  from  time  to  time  to  act  plays  in 
such  house  so  to  be  by  him  or  them  erected;  and  exer- 
cise music,  musical  presentments,  scenes,  dancing,  or 
other  the  like,  at  the  same,  or  other,  hours,  or  times, 
or  after  plays  are  ended,1  peaceably  and  quietly, 
without  the  impeachment  or  impediment  of  any  per- 
son or  persons  whatsoever,  for  the  honest  recreation 
of  such  as  shall  desire  to  see  the  same.  And  that  it 
shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and  for  the  said  William 
Davenant,  his  heirs,  executors,  administrators,  and 
assigns,  to  take  and  receive  of  such  our  subjects  as 
shall  resort  to  see  or  hear  any  such  plays,  scenes,  and 
entertainments  whatsoever,   such   sum   or  sums   of 

1  That  is,  he  may  give  his  "  musical  presentments,"  etc.,  either 
at  the  hours  when  he  was  accustomed  to  give  plays,  or  after  his 
plays  are  ended.  This  does  not  necessarily  imply  evening  enter- 
tainments. 


A   PROJECTED   THEATRE         427 

money  as  is,  are,  or  hereafter  from  time  to  time  shall 
be  accustomed  to  be  given  or  taken  in  other  play- 
houses and  places  for  the  like  plays,  scenes,  present- 
ments, and  entertainments. 

The  novelty  of  the  scheme  and  the  great  size 
of  the  proposed  building  must  have  alarmed  the 
owners  of  playhouses.  That  the  established  theatri- 
cal proprietors  were  hostile  is  clearly  indicated  by 
the  attitude  of  Richard  Heton,  one  of  the  Sewers 
of  the  Chamber  to  Queen  Henrietta,  and  at  the 
time  manager  of  the  Salisbury  Court  Playhouse.  In 
September,  1639,  he  wrote  out  a  document  entitled 
"Instructions  for  my  Patent,"  in  which  he  ad- 
vanced reasons  why  he  should  receive  the  sole 
power  to  elect  the  members  of  the  Queen's  Com- 
pany of  Players.  He  observes  that  under  the  exist- 
ing arrangement  the  company  was  free  to  leave  the 
Salisbury  Court  Playhouse  at  their  pleasure,  "as  in 
one  year  and  a  half  of  their  being  here  they  have 
many  times  threatened";  and  he  concludes  by 
adding:  "and  one  now  of  the  chief  fellows  [i.e., 
sharers  of  the  company],  an  agent  for  one  [William 
Davenant]  that  hath  got  a  grant  from  the  King 
for  the  building  of  a  new  playhouse  which  was  in- 
tended to  be  in  Fleet  Street,  which  no  man  can 
judge  that  a  fellow  of  our  Company,  and  a  well- 
wisher  to  those  that  own  the  house,  would  ever  be 
an  actor  in."  1  Doubtless  the  owners  of  other  houses 

1  Cunningham,  The  Whitejriars  Theatre,  in  The  Shakespeare 
Society's  Papers,  iv,  96. 


428     SHAKESPEAREAN   PLAYHOUSES 

had  the  same  sentiments,  and  exercised  what  in- 
fluence they  possessed  against  the  scheme.  But  the 
most  serious  opposition  in  all  probability  came 
from  the  citizens  and  merchants  living  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. We  know  how  bitterly  they  complained 
about  the  coaches  that  brought  playgoers  to  the 
small  Blackfriars  Theatre,  and  how  strenuously 
from  year  to  year  they  sought  the  expulsion  of  the 
King's  Men  from  the  precinct.1  They  certainly 
would  not  have  regarded  with  complacency  the 
erection  in  their  midst  of  a  still  larger  theatre. 

Whatever  the  opposition,  it  was  so  powerful  that 
on  October  2  Davenant  was  compelled  to  make  an 
indenture  by  which  he  virtually  renounced2  for 
himself  and  his  heirs  for  ever  the  right  to  build  a 
theatre  in  Fleet  Street,  or  in  any  other  place  "in  or 
near  the  cities,  or  suburbs  of  the  cities,  of  London 
or  Westminster,"  without  further  and  special  per- 
mission granted.  This  document,  first  printed  by 
Chalmers  in  his  Supplemental  Apology,  is  as  follows : 

This  indenture  made  the  second  day  of  October, 
in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  Sovereign 
Lord  Charles,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  England,  Scot- 
land, France,  and  Ireland  King,  Defender  of  the 
Faith,  &c.  Anno  Domini  1639.  Between  the  said 
King's  most  excellent  Majesty  of  the  first  part,  and 
William  Davenant  of  London,  Gent.,  of  the  other 

1  See  the  chapter  on  the  Second  Blackfriars. 

2  That  he  did  not  actually  surrender  the  patent  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  he  claimed  privileges  by  virtue  of  it  after  the  Res- 
toration; see  Halliwell-Phillipps,  A  Collection  of  Ancient  Docu- 
ments, p.  48. 


A   PROJECTED  THEATRE         429 

part.  Whereas  the  said  King's  most  excellent  Maj- 
esty, by  His  Highness's  letters  patents  under  the 
Great  Seal  of  England  bearing  date  the  six  and  twen- 
tieth day  of  March  last  past  before  the  date  of  these 
presents,  did  give  and  grant  unto  the  said  William 
Davenant,  his  heirs,  executors,  administrators,  and 
assigns  full  power,  license,  and  authority  that  he, 
they,  and  every  of  them,  by  him  and  themselves  and 
by  all  and  every  such  person  or  persons  as  he  or  they 
shall  depute  or  appoint,  and  his  and  their  laborers, 
servants,  and  workmen,  shall  and  may  lawfully, 
quietly,  and  peaceably  frame,  erect,  new  build,  and 
set  up  upon  a  parcel  of  ground  lying  near  unto 
or  behind  the  Three  Kings  Ordinary  in  Fleet  Street 
in  the  Parish  of  St.  Dunstan's  in  the  West,  London, 
or  in  St.  Bride's  London,  or  in  either  of  them,  or  in 
any  other  ground  in  or  about  that  place,  or  in  the 
whole  street  aforesaid,  already  allotted  to  him  for 
that  use,  or  in  any  other  place  that  is  or  hereafter 
shall  be  assigned  and  allotted  out  to  the  said  William 
Davenant  by  the  Right  Honorable  Thomas,  Earl  of 
Arundel  and  Surrey,  Earl  Marshall  of  England,  or 
any  other  His  Majesty's  Commissioners  for  Building, 
for  the  time  being  in  that  behalf,  a  theatre  or  play- 
house with  necessary  tiring  and  retiring  rooms  and 
other  places  convenient,  containing  in  the  whole 
forty  yards  square  at  the  most,  wherein  plays,  musi- 
cal entertainments,  scenes,  or  other  the  like  present- 
ments may  be  presented  by  and  under  certain  pro- 
visors  or  conditions  in  the  same  contained,  as  in  and 
by  the  said  letters  patents,  whereunto  relation  being 
had  more  fully  and  at  large,  it  doth  and  may  appear. 
Now  this  indenture  witnesseth,  and  the  said  Wil- 
liam Davenant  doth  by  these  presents  declare,  His 
Majesty's  intent,  meaning  at  and  upon  the  granting 
of  the  said  license  was  and  is  that  he,  the  said  William 


430     SHAKESPEAREAN    PLAYHOUSES 

Davenant,  his  heirs,  executors,  administrators  nor 
assigns  should  not  frame,  build,  or  set  up  the  said 
theatre  or  playhouse  in  any  place  inconvenient,  and 
that  the  said  parcel  of  ground  lying  near  unto  or  be- 
hind the  Three  Kings  Ordinary  in  Fleet  Street  in  the 
said  Parish  of  St.  Dunstan's  in  the  West,  London,  or 
in  St.  Bride's,  London,  or  in  either  of  them,  or  in  any 
other  ground  in  or  about  that  place,  or  in  the  whole 
street  aforesaid,  and  is  sithence  found  inconvenient 
and  unfit  for  that  purpose,  therefore  the  said  William 
Davenant  doth  for  himself  his  heirs,  executors,  ad- 
ministrators, and  assigns,  and  every  of  them,  cove- 
nant, promise,  and  agree  to  and  with  our  said  Sover- 
eign Lord  the  King,  his  heirs  and  successors,  that 
he,  the  said  William  Davenant,  his  heirs,  executors, 
administrators,  nor  assigns  shall  not,  nor  will  not, 
by  virtue  of  the  said  license  and  authority  to  him 
granted  as  aforesaid,  frame,  erect,  new  build,  or  set 
up  upon  the  said  parcel  of  ground  in  Fleet  Street 
aforesaid,  or  in  any  other  part  of  Fleet  Street,  a  the- 
atre or  playhouse,  nor  will  not  frame,  erect,  new  build, 
or  set  up  upon  any  other  parcel  of  ground  lying  in 
or  near  the  cities,  or  suburbs  of  the  cities,  of  London 
or  Westminster  any  theatre  or  playhouse,  unless  the 
said  place  shall  be  first  approved  and  allowed  by  war- 
rant under  His  Majesty's  sign  manual,  or  by  writing 
under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  said  Right  Honorable 
Thomas,  Earl  of  Arundel  and  Surrey.  In  witness 
whereof  to  the  one  part  of  this  indenture  the  said 
William  Davenant  hath  set  his  hand  and  seal  the  day 
and  year  first  above  written. 

William  Davenant.  L.S. 
Signed  sealed  and  delivered 

in  the  presence  of 

Edw.  Penruddoks. 

Michael  Baker. 


A   PROJECTED   THEATRE         431 

Possibly  as  a  recompense  for  this  surrender  of  his 
rights,  Davenant  was  made  Governor  of  the  King's 
and  Queen's  Servants  at  the  Cockpit  in  June  of  the 
following  year;  and  from  this  time  until  the  suppres- 
sion of  acting  in  1642,  he  expended  his  energies  in 
managing  the  affairs  of  this  important  playhouse. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

[In  the  following  list  are  included  the  books  and  articles 
constituting  the  main  authorities  upon  which  the  present 
study  is  based.  The  list  is  not  intended  to  be  an  exhaustive 
bibliography",  though  from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  fairly 
complete.  For  the  guidance  of  scholars  the  more  important 
titles  are  marked  with  asterisks.  It  will  be  seen  that  not  all 
the  works  are  included  which  are  cited  in  the  text,  or  re- 
ferred to  in  footnotes;  the  list,  in  fact,  is  strictly  confined  to 
works  bearing  upon  the  history  of  the  pre-Restoration 
playhouses.  Considerations  of  space  have  led  to  the  omis- 
sion of  a  large  number  of  books  dealing  with  the  topogra- 
phy of  London,  and  of  the  counties  of  Middlesex  and  Sur- 
rey, although  a  knowledge  of  these  is  essential  to  any 
thorough  study  of  the  playhouses.  Furthermore,  titles  of 
contemporary  plays,  pamphlets,  and  treatises  are  excluded, 
except  a  few  of  unusual  and  general  value.  Finally,  dis- 
cussions of  the  structure  of  the  early  stage,  of  the  man- 
ner of  dramatic  performances  in  the  time  of  Shakespeare, 
and  of  the  travels  of  English  actors  on  the  Continent  are 
omitted,  except  when  these  contain  also  material  important 
for  the  study  of  the  theatres.  At  the  close  is  appended  a 
select  list  of  early  maps  and  views  of  London.] 

*  Actors  Remonstrance,  or  Complaint  for  the  Silencing  of 
their  Profession.  London,  1643.  (Reprinted  in  W.  C.  Haz- 
litt's  The  English  Drama  and  Stage,  and  in  E.  W.  Ashbee's 
Facsimile  Reprints.)  [i 

*Adams,  J.  Q.  The  Conventual  Buildings  of  Blackfriars, 
London,  and  the  Playhouses  Constructed  Therein.  (The 
University  of  North  Carolina  Studies  in  Philology,  xiv,  64.) 

.  [2 
The  Four  Pictorial  Representations  of  the  Eliza- 


434  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

bethan  Stage.    {The  Journal  of  English  and  Germanic  Phi- 
lology, x,  329.)  [3 
*Adams,  J.  Q.    The  Dramatic  Records  of  Sir  Henry  Her- 
bert, Master  of  the  Revels  1 62 3- 1 67 3.    New  Haven,   1917. 

[4 

Lordinge  {alias  "Lodowick")   Barry.    {Modern 

Philology,  ix,  567.  See  No.  189.)  [5 

Albrecht,  H.  A.  Das  englische  Kinder  theater.  Halle, 
1883.  [6 

Archer,  T.  The  Highway  of  Letters.  London,  1893. 
(Chap,  xv,  "Whitefriars  and  the  Playhouses.")  [7 

Archer,  W.  The  Fortune  Theatre.  (The  London 
Tribune,  October  12,  1907;  reprinted  in  New  Shakespeari- 
ana,  October,  1908,  and  in  the  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch, 
xliv,  159.   See  also  Nos.  8,  38,  61,  129.)  [8 

A  Sixteenth  Century  Playhouse.    {The  Universal 

Review,  June,  1888,  p.  281.  Deals  with  the  De  Witt  drawing 
of  the  Swan.)  [9 

Aronstein,  P.  Die  Organisation  des  englischen  Schau- 
spiels  im  Zeitalter  Shakespeares.  {Germanisch-Romanische 
Monatsschrift,  11,  165,  216.)  [10 

Audi  Alteram  Partem.  Cunningham's  Extracts  from 
the  Revels'  Books.  {The  Athenczum,  191 1,  11,  101,  130,  421; 
1912, 1,  469,  654;  11,  143.   See  Nos.  80,  179,  180,  183.)     [11 

Baker,  G.  P.  The  Children  of  Powles.  {The  Harvard 
Monthly,  May,  1891.)  [12 

The  Development  of  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatist. 

New  York,  1907.  [13 

Baker,  H.  B.  History  of  the  London  Stage  and  its  Famous 
Players.  London  and  New  York,  1904.  (A  new  and  re- 
written edition  of  The  London  Stage.  2  vols.  London,  1889.) 

[14 

Our  Old  Actors.    2  vols.  London,  1 881.    (There 

was  an  earlier  edition,  London,  1878,  printed  in  New  York, 
1879,  with  the  title,  English  Actors  from  Shakespeare  to 
Macready.)  [15 

Bapst,  C.  G.  Essai  sur  VHistoire  du  Theatre.  Paris, 
1893.  [16 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  435 

Barrett,  C.  R.  B.  The  History  of  the  Society  of  Apothe- 
caries of  London.    London,   1905.  [17 

Bear  Garden  and  Hope.  See  Nos.  27,  72,  99,  119,  143, 
144,  147,  152,  157,  198,  221,  222,  223,  228,  236,  238,  239, 
240,  241,  274,  281,  303,  304,  316. 

*Bell,  H.  Contributions  to  the  History  of  the  English 
Playhouse.  {The  Architectural  Record,  March  and  April, 
1913.)  [18 

Bell,  W.  G.  Fleet  Street  in  Seven  Centuries.  London, 
1912.    (Chap,  xiv,  "The  Whitefriars  Playhouses.")       [19 

Besant,  Sir  W.  Mediaeval  London.  London  in  the  Time 
of  the  Tudors.  London  in  the  Time  of  the  Stuarts.  4  vols. 
London,  1903-06.  [20 

Binz,  G.  Deutsche  Besucher  im  Shakespeare'schen 
London.  {Beilage  zur  Allgemeinen  Zeitung.  Miinchen, 
August,  1902.)  [21 

Londoner  Theater   und    Schauspiele   im   Jahre 

1599.    {Anglia,  xxn,  456.)  [22 

*Birch,  T.  and  R.  F.  Williams.  The  Court  and  Times 
of  James  the  First.    2  vols.    London,  1849.  [23  k^ 

Blackfriars,  First  and  Second.  See  Nos.  2,  6,  17, 
20,  26,  34,  41,  42,  43,  59,  61,  72,  90,  97,  100,  101,  105,  106, 
108,  119,  136,  137,  146,  150,  163,  178,  179,  191,  196,  201, 
214,  218,  223,  244,  248,  287,  288,  289,  293,  296,  297, 
298. 

Blanch,  W.  H.  Dulwich  College  and  Edward  Alleyn. 
London,  1877.  [24 

Bolingbroke,  L.  G.  Pre-Elizabethan  Plays  and  Players 
in  Norfolk.    {Norfolk  Archaeology,  xi,  336.)  [25 

Bond,  R..W.  The  Complete  Works  of  John  Lyly.  3  vols. 
Oxford,  1902.  [26 

Boulton,  W.  B.  The  Amusements  of  Old  London.  2  vols. 
London,  1901.  [27 

*Braines,  W.  W.  Holywell  Priory  and  the  Site  of  the 
Theatre,  Shoreditch.  London,  1915.  (Part  xliii  of  Indica- 
tions of  Houses  of  Historical  Interest  in  London,  issued  by 
the  London  County  Council.)  [28 

Brand,  J.   See  No.  157. 


436  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Brandes,  G  William  Shakespeare.  Translated  by  Wil- 
liam Archer.  2  vols.  London,  1898.  [29 
v*  Brayley,  E.  W.  Historical  and  Descriptive  Accounts  of 
the  Theatres  of  London.  London,  1826.  (Brief  notice  of  the 
Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane;  relates  chiefly  to  Restoration 
theatres.)  [30 

Brereton,  J.  Le  G.  De  Witt  at  the  Swan.  {A  Book  of 
Homage  to  Shakespeare.   Oxford,  1916,  p.  204.)  [31 

Bruce,  J.  Who  was  "Will,  my  lord  of  Leycester's  jesting 
player"?   {The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  1,  88.)         [32 

Bullen,  G.  The  Cockpit  or  Phoenix  Theatre  in  1660. 
{The  Athenaum,  May  21,  1881,  p.  699.)  [33 

*Bulow,  G  von  and  W.  Powell.  Diary  of  the  Journey 
of  Philip  Julius,  Duke  of  Stettin-Pomerania,  through  Eng- 
land in  the  year  1602.  {Transactions  of  the  Royal  Historical 
Society,  New  Series,  vi.  See  No.  146.)  [34 

^Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  1 547-1660. 
London,  1856-.    (See  also  No.  192.)  [35 

Calendar  of  the  Patent  Rolls.    London,  1891-1908.     [36 

Calmour,  A.  C.  Fact  and  Fiction  about  Shakespeare, 
with  Some  Account  of  the  Playhouses,  Players,  and  Play- 
wrights of  His  Period.   Stratford-on-Avon,  1 894.  [37 

A  Catalogue  of  Models  and  of  Stage-Sets  in  the  Dramatic 
Museum  of  Columbia  University.  New  York,  191 6.  (See 
also  Nos.  129,  211.)  [38 

*Chalmers,  George.  An  Apology  for  the  Believers  in  the 
Shakspe are-Papers.   London,  1797.  [39 

* A  Supplemental  Apology.    London,  1799.       [40 

*Chambers,  E.  K.  Commissions  for  the  Chapel.  (The 
Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  357.)  [41 

* Court  Performances  Before  Queen  Elizabeth. 

{The  Modern  Language  Review,  11,  1.)  [42 

* Court  Performances  Under  James   the  First. 

{Ibid.,  iv,  153.)  [43 

* Dramatic  Records  from  the  Lansdowne  Manu- 
scripts.   (The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  143.)         [44 

The  Elizabethan  Lords  Chamberlain.    {Ibid.,  1, 

31.)  Us 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  437 

Chambers,  E.  K.  [Review  of]  Henslowe's  Diary,  Edited 
by  Walter  W.  Greg.  {The  Modern  Language  Review,  iv, 
407,  51 1-)  [46 

* A  Jotting  by  John  Aubrey.  (The  Malone  So- 
ciety's Collections,  1,  341.  Concerns  Beeston  and  the  Cock- 
pit in  Drury  Lane.)  [47 

* The  Mediaeval  Stage.   Oxford,  1903.  [48 

Nathaniel  Field  and  Joseph  Taylor.  {The  Mod- 
ern Language  Review,  iv,  395.)  [49 

Notes  on  the  History  of  the  Revels  Office  under  the 

Tudor s.   London,  1906.  [50 

The  Stage  of  the  Globe.    {The  Works  of  William 

Shakespeare.  Stratford-Town  Edition.  Stratford-on-Avon, 
1904^07,  x,  351.)  [51 

Two  Early  Player-Lists.    (The  Malone  Society's 

Collections,  1,  348.)  [52 

William  Kempe.   {The  Modern  Language  Review, 

iv,  88.)  [53 

♦Chambers,  E.  K.  and  W.  W.  Greg.  Dramatic  Records 
from  the  Privy  Council  Register,  1 603-1642.  (The  Malone 
Society's  Collections,  1,  370.  For  the  records  prior  to  1603 
see  No.  87.   Cf.  also  No.  260.)  [54 

* Dramatic  Records  of  the  City  of  London.  The 

Remembrancia.  (The  Malone  Society's  Collections,  1,  43. 
See  also  No.  224.)  [55 

* Royal  Patents  for  Players.  (The  Malone  So- 
ciety's Collections,  1,  260.)  [56 

Charlanne,  L.  Vlnfluence  Francaise  en  Angleterre  au 
xviie  Siecle,  Le  Theatre  et  la  Critique.   Paris,  1906.  [57 

*Child,  H.  The  Elizabethan  Theatre.  {The  Cambridge 
History  of  English  Literature,  vol.  vi,  chap,  x.)  [58 

Clapham,  A.  W.  On  the  Topography  of  the  Dominican 
Priory  of  London.   {Archaologia,  lxiii,  57.   See  also  Nos.  2, 

61.)  [59 

* The  Topography  of  the  Carmelite  Priory  of 

London.   {The  Journal  of  the  British  Archceological  Associa- 
tion, New  Series,  xvi,  15.    See  also  No.  61.)  [60 
Clapham,  A.  W.  and  W.  H.  Godfrey.    Some  Famous 


43 «  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Buildings  and  their  Story.  Westminster,  [1913].  (Contains 
Godfrey's  study  of  the  Fortune  contract,  and,  in  abbrevi- 
ated form,  the  two  articles  by  Clapham  noted  above, 
Nos.  59,  60.   See  also  Nos.  8,  38,  116,  129.)  [61 

Clark,  A.  Players  or  Companies  on  Tour  1 548-1630. 
(Notes  and  Queries,  x  Series,  xn,  41.)  [62 

Cockpit-in-Court.  See  Nos.  18,  80,  81,  82,  83,  89,  99, 
180,  181,  182,  183,  184,  197,  228,  250,  253,  305,  313. 

Cockpit-in-Drury  Lane.  See  Nos.  4,  30,  33,  47,  72,  88, 
91,  99,  119,  138,  139,  142,  147,  159,  197,  223,  227,  228, 
303. 

*Collier,  J.  P.  The  Alleyn  Papers.  London.  Printed 
for  The  Shakespeare  Society.    1843.   (See  No.  161.)         [63 

The  Diary  of  Philip  Henslowe.   London.   Printed 

for  The  Shakespeare  Society,  1845.    (See  No.  143.)  [64 

* The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry.   3  vols. 

1 83 1.   Second  edition,  London,  1879.  [^5 

Lives  of  the  Original  Actors.    (See  No.  68.)       [66 

* Memoirs  of  Edward  Alleyn.    London.    Printed 

for  The  Shakespeare  Society,  1841.   (See  No.  316.)         [67 

Memoirs  of  the  Principal  Actors  in  the  Plays  of 

Shakespeare.  London.  Printed  for  The  Shakespeare  Society. 
1846.   (Reprinted  with  some  corrections  in  No.  65.)        [68 

On  Players  and  Dramatic  Performances  in  the 

Reign  of  Edward  IV.  (The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers, 
11,  87.)  [69 

* Original  History  of  "The  Theatre"  in  Shore- 
ditch,  and  Connexion  of  the  Burbadge  Family  with  it. 
(Ibid.,  iv,  63.)  [70 

Richard  Field,  Nathaniel  Field,  Anthony  Mun- 

day,  and  Henry  Chettle.    (Ibid.,  iv,  36.)  [71 

* The  Works  of  Shakespeare,  London,  1844.    (Vol. 

1,  p.  ccxli,  reprints  a  record  of  the  end  of  certain  early  play- 
houses from  "some  manuscript  notes  to  a  copy  of  Stowe's 
Annales,  by  Howes,  folio,  1631,  in  the  possession  of  Mr. 
Pickering."   See  No.  119.)  [72 

Conrad,  H.  Robert  Greene  als  Dramatiker.  (The 
Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xxix-xxx,  210.)  [73 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  439 

Corbin,  J.  Shakspere  his  own  Stage-Manager.  {The 
Century  Magazine,  lxxxiii,  260.)  [74 

Creighton,  C.  A  History  of  Epidemics  in  Britain.  2 
vols.   Cambridge,  1891-94.  [75 

Creizenach,  W.  Geschichte  des  neueren  Dramas.  Vol. 
iv,  Part  I,  Book  viii.  Halle,  1909.  (English  translation  by 
Cecile  Hugon,  London,  1916.)  [76 

Die   Schauspiele   der   englischen    Komodianten. 

{Deutsche  N ational-Litteratur,  xxiii.)  [77 

Cullen,  C.  Puritanism  and  the  Stage.  {Proceedings  of 
the  Royal  Philosophical  Society  of  Glasgow,  xliii,  153.)     [78 

Cunningham,  P.  Did  General  Harrison  Kill  "Dick 
Robinson"  the  Player?  {The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers, 
11,  11.)  [79 

* Extracts  from  the  Accounts  of  the  Revels  at  the 

Court  in  the  Reigns  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and  King  James  I. 
London.  Printed  for  The  Shakespeare  Society,  1842.  (See 
Nos.  11,  180,  181,  184.)  [80 

A  Handbook  of  London.    2  vols.    London,  1849. 

(A  new  edition,  "corrected  and  enlarged,"  London,  1850. 
See  also  No.  305.)  [81 

Inigo  Jones.    A   Life  of  the  Architect.    London. 

Printed  for  The  Shakespeare  Society.    1848.  [82 

Inigo  Jones,   and  his  Office  under  the  Crown. 

{The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  1,  103.)  [83 

Plays  at  Court,  Anno  161 3.   {Ibid.,  11,  123.)     [84 

■ Sir  George  Buc  and  the  Office  of  the  Revels. 

{Ibid.,  iv,  143.)  ^  [85 

* The  Whitefriars  Theatre,  the  Salisbury  Court 

Theatre,  and  the  Duke's  Theatre  in  Dorset  Gardens. 
{Ibid.,  iv,  89.)  [86 

Curtain.   See  Nos.  96,  150,  151,  222,  223,  284. 

*Dasent,  J.  R.  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England. 
New  Series.  London,  1890-.  (This  contains  the  Acts 
to  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign;  for  those  Acts  relating 
to  the  drama  from  1603  to  1642,  see  No.  54.  Cf.  No. 
260.)  [87 

Description  of  the  Great  Machines  of  the  Descent  of  Or- 


44©  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

pheus  into  Hell.  Presented  by  the  French  Comedians  at  the 
Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane.   London,  1661.  [88 

Diaries  and  Despatches  of  the  Venetian  Embassy  at  the 
Court  of  King  James  I.,  in  the  Years  1617,  1618.  Trans- 
lated by  Rawdon  Brown.   {The  Quarterly  Review,  en,  398.) 

[89 

Diary,  of  the  Duke  of  Stettin-Pomerania.   (See  Nos.  34, 

146.) 

Dobell,  B.  Newly  Discovered  Documents.  (The  Athe- 
naurn,  March  30,  1901,  p.  403.   Of  value  for  Blackfriars.) 

[90 

*Downes,  J.  Roscius  Anglic anus.  London,  1708.        [91 

Dramaticus.  On  the  Profits  of  Old  Actors.  (The  Shake- 
speare Society's  Papers,  1,  21.)  [92 

The   Players   Who  Acted   in    The   Shoemaker's 

Holiday,  1600.    (Ibid.,  iv,  no.)  [93 

Durand,  W.  Y.  Notes  on  Richard  Edwards.  (The 
Journal  of  Germanic  Philology,  iv,  348.)  [94 

Pal&mon  and  Arcyte,  Progne,  Marcus  Geminusy 

and  the  Theatre  in  Which  They  Were  Acted,  1566.  (Pub- 
lications of  the  Modern  Language  Association  of  America, 
xx,  502.)  [95 

Ellis,  H.  The  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  Parish  of 
Saint  Leonard,  Shoreditch.   London,  1798.  [96 

Elton,  C.  I.  William  Shakespeare,  His  Family  and 
Friends.  London,  1904.  (Chap,  iv  deals  with  Blackfriars 
and  the  Globe.)  [97 

Evans,  M.  B.  An  Early  Type  of  Stage.  (Modern  Phi- 
lology, ix,  421.)  [98 

Evelyn,  J.  Diary  and  Correspondence.  Edited  by 
William  Bray  and  H.  B.  Wheatley.  4  vols.  London, 
1906.  [99 

*Feuillerat,  A.  Blackfriars  Records.  (The  Malone 
Society's  Collections,  11,  1.)  [100 

John  Lyly.   Cambridge,  1910.  [101 

Le  Bureau  des  Menus-Plaisirs  (Office  of  the  Revels) 

et  la  Mise  en  Scene  a  la  Cour  D' Elizabeth.   Louvain,  1910. 

[102 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  441 

♦Feuillerat,  A.  Documents  Relating  to  the  Office  of  the 
Revels  in  the  Time  of  Queen  Elizabeth.   Lou  vain,  1908.     [103 

Documents  Relating  to  the  Revels  at  Court  in  the 

Time  of  King  Edward  VI  and  Queen  Mary.  {The  Loseley 
Manuscripts.)   Louvain,  1914.  [104 

* The  Origin  of  Shakespeare's  Blackfriars  The- 
atre.   (The  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlviii,  81.)  [105 

Shakespeare's  Blackfriars.     (The  London  Daily 

Chronicle,  December  22,  191 1.)  [106 

*Firth,  C.  H.  The  Suppression  of  the  Drama  during  the 
Protectorate  and  Commonwealth.  {Notes  and  Queries, 
vii  Series,  vi,  122.)  [107 

Fitzjeffrey,  H.  Notes  from  Black-fryers.  London, 
1620.  [108 

'  I  *Fleay,  F.  G.  A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English 
Drama,  1559-1642.    2  vols.    London,  1891.  [109 

A  Chronicle  History  of  the  Life  and  Work  of  Wil- 
liam Shakespeare.   London,  1886.  [no 

* A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  1559- 

1642.   London,  1890.  [in 

History  of  the  Theatres  in  London  from  their 

First  Opening  in  1576  to  their  Closing  in  1642.  {Transac- 
tions of  the  Royal  Historical  Society,  x,  114.  Also  privately- 
issued.)  [112 

On  the  Actor  Lists,  1578-1642.    {Ibid.,  ix,  44.) 

[113 

A  Shakespeare  Manual.  London,  1878.  [114 

Flecknoe,  R.  A  Short  Discourse  of  the  English  Stage. 
(Attached  to  Love's  Kingdom,  1664;  reprinted  in  No.  158.) 

["5 

Forestier,  A.    The  Fortune  Theatre  Reconstructed. 

{The  Illustrated  London  News,  August  12,  191 1,  p.  276.) 

[116 

Origins  of  the  English  Stage  {Ibid.,  cxxxv,  934; 

cxxxvi,  57,  169,  225,  344,  423.)  [117 

Fortune.  See  Nos.  8,  24,  38,  46,  61,  63,  64,  67,  72,  89, 
116,  119,  120,  126,  129,  143,  144,  161,  190,  211,  223,  231, 
234,  235,  239,  303,  304,  316. 


442  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Fowell,  F.  and  F.  Palmer.  Censorship  in  England. 
London,  [1913].  [118 

*Furnivall,  F.  J.  The  End  of  Shakespeare's  Theatres. 
(The  Academy,  xxn,  314.  Manuscript  notes  from  the 
Phillipps  copy  of  Stow's  Annals,  1631.  Previously  printed 
by  Collier.    See  No.  72.)  [119 

The    Fortune    Theatre    in    1649.     (Notes    and 

Queries,  x  Series,  1,  85.)  [120 

* Harrison's  Description  of  England.    The  New 

Shakspere  Society.  London,  1877-78.   (See  No.  154.)    [121 

G,  G.  M.  The  Stage  Censor,  an  Historical  Sketch:  1544- 
IQ07.   London,  1908.  [122 

*Gaedertz,  K.  T.  Zur  Kenntnis  der  altenglischen  Biihne. 
Bremen,  1888.  (On  the  De  Witt  drawing  of  the  Swan.  See 
Nos.  31,  193,  306.)  [123 

Gaehde,  C.  Das  Theater;  Schauspielhaus  und  Schau- 
spielkunst  vom  griechischen  Altertum  bis  auf  die  Gegenwart. 
Leipzig,  1908.  [124 

Gardner,  A.  E.  The  Site  of  the  Globe  Playhouse  of 
Shakespeare.    (The  Athenaum,  December  5,  1914.)       [125 

Gayton,  E.  Pleasant  Notes  on  Don  Quixot.  London, 
1654.   (The  second  edition,  1768,  is  of  no  value.)  [126 

Genest,  J.  Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  from  the 
Restoration  in  1660  to  1830.    10  vols.   Bath,  1832.  [127 

*Gildersleeve,  V.  C.  Government  Regulation  of  the 
Elizabethan  Drama.   New  York,  1908.  [128 

Globe.  See  Nos.  38,  49,  51,  72,  97,  117,  119,  125,  150, 
152,  165,  166,  167,  171,  176,  191,  205,  206,  207,  208,  211, 
212,  213,  223,  233,  236,  237,  240,  241,  251,  257,  266,  292, 
297,  299,  300,  301. 

Godfrey,  W.  H.  An  Elizabethan  Playhouse.  (The 
Architectural  Review,  London,  April,  1908;  reprinted  in 
No.  61.  See  also  the  Architect  and  Builder's  Journal,  Lon- 
don, August  16,  191 1,  and  The  Architectural  Review,  Lon- 
don, January,  191 2,  for  descriptions  of  Mr.  Godfrey's 
model  of  the  Fortune.  This  model  is  now  in  the  Dramatic 
Museum  at  Columbia  University,  and  a  duplicate  is  in  the 
Museum  of  European  Culture  at  the  University  of  Illinois. 
See  also  Nos.  8,  38,  61,  116,  211.)  [129 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


443 


Goodwin,  A.  T.  Court  Revels  in  the  Reign  of  Henry 
VII.    {The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  i,  47.)  [130 

Grabo,  C.  H.  Theatres  of  Elizabeth's  London.  {Chau- 
tauquan,  November,  1906.)  [131 

*Graves,  T.  S.  The  Court  and  the  London  Theatres  Dur- 
ing the  Reign  of  Elizabeth.   Menasha,  Wis.,  1913.         [132 

* A  Note  on  the  Swan  Theatre.  {Modern  Philol- 
ogy, ix,  431.   See  No.  135.)  [133 

The  Shape  of  the  First  London  Theatre.  {The 

South  Atlantic  Quarterly,  July,  1914.)  [134 

Tricks  of  Elizabethan  Showmen.    {Ibid.,  April, 

1915.  Deals  with  The  Swan.  See  No.  133.)  [135 

/-*Greenstreet,  J.  The  Blackfriars  Playhouse:  Its  An- 
tecedents. {The  Athenaum,  July  17,  1886,  p.  91,  January  7, 
1888,  p.  25.)  [136 

* Blackfriars  Theatre  in  the  Time  of  Shakespeare. 

{Ibid.,  April  7,  1888,  p.  445;  April  21,  1888,  p.  509; 
August  10,  1889,  p.  203.  These  documents  are  reprinted 
by  Fleay,  No.  in.)  [137 

* Documents  Relating  to  the  Players  at  the  Red 

Bull,  Clerkenwell,  and  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane,  in  the 
Time  of  James  I.  {The  New  Shakspere  Society  Transac- 
tions, 1880-86,  p.  489.  Also  in  The  Athen&um,  February 
21,  1885.    Reprinted  by  Fleay,  No.  III.)  [138 

* Drury  Lane  Theatre  in  the  Reign  of  James  I. 

{The  Athenaum,  1885,  February  21,  p.  258;  August  29,  p. 
282.    Reprinted  by  Fleay,  No.  in.)  [139 

* The  Red  Bull  Playhouse  in  the  Reign  of  James 

I.  {The  Athenaum,  November  28,  1885,  p.  709.  Reprinted 
by  Fleay,  No.  in;  and  by  Wallace,  in  completer  form, 
No.  303.)  ^  ^   [140 

* The  Whitefriars  Theatre  in  the  Time  of  Shake- 
speare. {The  New  Shakspere  Society  Transactions,  1887-90, 
p.  269.)  [141 

* The  Will  of  Thomas  Greene,  with  Particulars 

as  to  the  Red  Bull.  {The  Athenaum,  August  29,  1885. 
Reprinted  by  Fleay,  No.  in.)  [142 

*Greg,  W.  W.  Henslowe's  Diary.  2  vols.  London,  1904- 
1908.    (See  No.  46.)  [143 


444  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*Greg,  W.  W.   Henslowe  Papers.    London,  1907.       [144 

See  also  under  Chambers,  E.  K.  and  W.  W.  Greg. 

Grote,  W.  Das  London  zur  Zeit  der  Konigin  Elisabeth 
in  deutscher  Beleuchtung.    (Neueren  Sprachen,  xiv,  633.) 

[145 

*Hager,  H.  Diary  of  the  Journey  of  Philip  Julius,  Duke 
of  Stettin-Pomerania,  through  England  in  the  Year  1602. 
(Englische  Studien,  xvm,  315.    See  No.  34.)  [146 

*Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  0.  A  Collection  of  Ancient 
Documents  Respecting  the  Office  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels, 
and  Other  Papers  Relating  to  the  Early  Theatre.  London, 
1870.  (Only  eleven  copies  printed.  The  documents,  with 
others,  have  been  reprinted  by  Adams  in  No.  4.)         [147 

Dispute  between  the  Earl  of  Worcester's  Players 

and  the  Corporation  of  Leicester  in  1586.  (The  Shakespeare 
Society's  Papers,  iv,  145.)  [148 

Illustrations  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare.    London, 

1874.  (The  material  of  this  book  has  been  embodied  in 
No.  150.)  [149 

* Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare.   2  vols.   The 

eleventh  edition.  London,  1907.  (The  page  numbers  have 
not  been  changed  since  the  seventh  edition,  1887.)       [150 

Tarlton's  Jests,  and  News  out  of  Purgatory.  Lon- 
don.  Printed  for  The  Shakespeare  Society.    1844.         [151 

Two  Old  Theatres.    Views  of  the  Globe  and  Bear 

Garden.    Privately  printed.    Brighton.    1884.  [152 

The  Visits  of  Shakespeare' 's  Company  of  Actors  to 

the  Provincial  Cities  and  Towns  of  England,  Illustrated  by 
Extracts  Gathered  from  Corporate  Records.  Privately 
printed.   Brighton,  1887.  [153 

*Harrison,  William.  Harrison's  Description  of  Eng- 
land. Edited  by  F.  J.  Furnivall.  The  New  Shakspere  So- 
ciety, London,  1877-78.  (Additions  by  Mrs.  C.  C.  Stopes, 
The  Shakespeare  Library,  1908.  Edited  also  by  L.  Withing- 
ton,  London,  1902.)  [154 

Haslewood,  Joseph.  Account  of  the  Old  London  Thea- 
tres. (Roxburghe  Revels,  Edinburgh,  1837,  p.  85.  Fifty 
copies  only  printed.)  [155 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  445 

Hatcher,  O.  L.  A  Book  for  Shakespeare  Plays  and 
Pageants.   New  York,  1916.    ("Theatres,"  p.  133.)       [156 

Hazlitt,  W.  C.  Brand's  Popular  Antiquities  of  Great 
Britain.  Faiths  and  Folklore.   2  vols.   London,  1905.     [157 

* The  English  Drama  and  Stage  under  the  Tudor 

and  Stuart  Princes,  1 543-1664.  Printed  for  the  Roxburghe 
Library.    1869.  [158 

Heckethorn,  C.  W.  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  and  the  Locali- 
ties Adjacent.    London,  1896.  [159 

Hentzner,  P.  Itinerarium  Germanics;  Gallics;  Anglice; 
Italics.   Nuremberg,  1612.  [160 

Herbert,  J.  F.  Additions  to  "The  Alleyn  Papers." 
{The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,   1,   16.    See  No.  63.) 

[161 

Heywood,  T.  An  Apology  for  Actors.  London,  1612. 
(London:  Reprinted  for  The  Shakespeare  Society.    1841.) 

[162 

*Historical  Manuscripts  Commission.  Calendars  and 
Reports.   London,  1870-.  [163 

Hitchcock,  R.  An  Historical  View  of  the  Irish  Stage. 
2  vols.   Dublin,  1788.  [164 

Hope.   See  Bear  Garden  and  Hope. 

*Hubbard,  G.  On  the  Exact  Site  of  the  Globe  Play- 
house of  Shakespeare.  {Transactions  of  the  London  and 
Middlesex  Archcsological  Society,  New  Series,  vol.  11,  part 
iii,  1912.)   ^  [165 

* The  Site  of  the  Globe  Theatre  of  Shakespeare 

on  Bankside  as  Shown  by  Maps  of  the  Period.  {Journal  of 
the  Royal  Institute  of  British  Architects,  London,  1909, 
Third  Series,  xvu,  26.)  [166 

The  Site  of  the  Globe.   {Notes  and  Queries,  xn 

Series,  xn,  II,  50,  70,  201,  224.)  [167 

Hughson,  D.  An  Epitome  of  the  Privileges  of  London, 
Including  Southwark,  as  Granted  by  Royal  Charters.  Lon- 
don, 1812.  [168 

Multum  in  Parvo.    The  Privileges  of  Southwark. 

London,  [c.  1818].  [169 

Ingleby,  C.  M.    A  Complete  View  of  the  Shakespeare 


446  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Controversy.  London,  1861.  (A  discussion  of  the  inaccura- 
cies and  forgeries  of  J.  P.  Collier.)  [170 

Jackson,  R.  C.  The  Site  of  Shakespeare's  Globe  Play- 
house.    (The  Athenwum,  October  30,  1909,  p.  525.)        [171 

*Jeaffreson,  J.  C.  Middlesex  County  Records.  4  vols. 
London,  1886-92.  [172 

Jenkinson,  W.  The  Early  Playhouses  and  the  Drama 
as  Referred  to  in  Tudor  and  Stuart  Literature.  (The 
Contemporary  Review,  cv,  847.)  [173 

Jusserand,  J.  J.  Les  Theatres  de  Londres  au  Temps 
de  Shakespeare.    (La  Revue  de  Paris,  vi,  713.)  [174 

A  Literary  History  of  the  English  People   From 

the  Renaissance  to  the  Civil  War.  2  vols.  London,  1906-09. 
(Vol.  11,  bk.  v,  chap,  v.)  [175 

K.,  L.  L.  Site  of  the  Globe  Theatre  (Notes  and  Queries, 
xi  Series,  x,  290,  335.)  [176 

*Kelly,  W.  Notices  Illustrative  of  the  Drama  and  Other 
Popular  Amusements.   London,  1865.  [177 

*Kempe,  A.  J.    The  Loseley  Manuscripts.  London,  1836. 

[178 

*La  Fevre  de  La  Boderie,  Antoine.  Ambassades  de 
Monsieur  de  La  Boderie  en  Angleterre  .  .  .  depuis  les  annees 
1606  jusq'  en  161 1.   5  vols.  [Paris],  1750.  [179 

Law,  E.  Cunningham's  Extracts  from  the  Revels' 
Books,  1842.  (The  Athen&um,  191 1,  vol.  11,  pp.  297,  324, 
388;  1912,  vol.  1,  pp.  390,  469.    See  Nos.  n,  80,  181,  184.) 

[180 

More  About  Shakespeare  "  Forgeries."   London, 

1913.    (See  Nos.  11,  80,  180,  184.)  [181 

Shakespeare  at  Whitehall.    (The  London  Times, 

October  31,  1910,  p.  10.)  [182 

Shakespeare's    Christmas,    St.    Stephen's    Day, 

1604.    (Ibid.,  December  26,  1910,  p.  10.)  [183 

Some  Supposed  Shakespeare  Forgeries.    London, 

1911.   (See  Nos.  11,  80,  180,  181.)  [184 

*Lawrence,  W.  J.  The  Elizabethan  Playhouse  and  Other 
Studies.  Stratford-upon-Avon.  191 2.  Second  Series,  191 3. 
(I  do  not  record  separately  the  numerous  articles  by  Mr. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  447 

Lawrence  which  appeared  first  in  periodicals,  and  which 
are  reprinted  in  these  two  volumes.)  [185 

"Lawrence,  W.  J.  The  Evolution  and  Influence  of  the 
Elizabethan  Playhouse.  (The  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvii, 
18.)  [186 

* A  Forgotten  Restoration  Playhouse.   (Englische 

Studien,  xxxv,  279.)  [187 

Ireland's  First  Theatrical  Manager.   (The  Weekly 

Freeman,  St.  Patrick's  Day  Number,  March  II,  1916.)  [188 

* The  Mystery  of  Lodowick  Barry.  (The  Univer- 
sity of  North  Carolina  Studies  in  Philology,  xiv,  52.)     [189 

* Restoration  Stage  Nurseries.    (Archiv  fur  das 

Studium  der  Neueren  Sprachen  und  Literaturen,  1914, 
p.  301.)  [190 

Lee,  Sir  S.  A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare.  New  York, 
1916.   (Chap,  vi.)  [191 

*  Letters  and  Papers,  Foreign  and  Domestic,  of  the  Reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  London,  1 862-1 905.  (Calendar  of  State 
Papers;  see  No.  35.)  [192 

Logeman,  H.  Johannes  de  Witt's  Visit  to  the  Swan 
Theatre.  (Anglia,  xix,  117.  Cf.  The  Academy,  December 
26,  1896.   See  No.  31,  123,  306.)  [193 

London  Topographical  Society.  London  Topographi- 
cal Record.   London,  1901-.  [194 

Maas,  H.  Aussere  Geschichte  der  Englischen  Theater- 
truppen  in  dem  Zeitraum  von  1559  bis  1642.  Lou  vain,  1907. 

[195 

Die  Kindertruppen.   Gottingen,  1901.  [196 

*McAfee,  H.    Pepys  on  the  Restoration  Stage.    New 

Haven,  1916.  [197 

Malcolm,  J.  P.  Anecdotes  of  the  Manners  and  Customs  of 

London  during  the  Eighteenth  Century.  London,  1808.  [198 
Anecdotes  of  the  Manners  and  Customs  of  London 

from  the  Roman  Invasion  to  the  Year  1700.   London,  181 1. 

[i99 
*Malone,  E.    The  Plays  and  Poems  of  William  Shake- 
speare.   21   vols.    London,  1821.    (The  Variorum  edition, 
edited  by  Boswell.)  [200 


448  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Manly,  J.  M.  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal  and 
their  Masters.  {The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Litera- 
ture, vol.  vi,  chap,  xi.)  [201 

Manning,  O.  and  W.  Bray.  The  History  and  Antiqui- 
ties of  the  County  of  Surrey.  3  vols.  London,  1804-14.  [202 

Mantzius,  K.  Engelske  Theaterforhold  i  Shakespeare- 
tiden.   Khvn.,  1901.    (See  No.  204.)  [203 

A  History  of  Theatrical  Art  in  Ancient  and  Mod- 
ern Times.  Authorised  Translation  by  Louise  von  Cossel. 
Vol.  in,  "The  Shakespearean  Period  in  England."  Lon- 
don, 1904.  [204 

Martin,  W.  Shakespeare  in  London.  (The  London 
Times,  October  8,  1909,  p.  10.)  [205 

The  Site  of  Shakespeare's  Globe  Playhouse.  {The 

Athenaum,  October  9,  1909,  p.  425.)  [206 

The  Site  of  the  Globe.    {Notes  and  Queries,  xi 

Series,  x,  209,  xn,  10,  121,  143,  161.)  [207 

* The  Site  of  the  Globe  Playhouse  of  Shakespeare. 

{Surrey  Archaeological  Collections,  London,  1910,  xxiii,  149. 
Also  separately  printed.)  [208 

Member  from  the  Beginning.  Accounts  of  Perform- 
ances and  Revels  at  Court  in  the  Reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
{The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers,  in,  87.)  [209 

Meymott,  W.  J.  The  Manor  of  Old  Paris  Garden;  an 
Historical  Account  of  Christ  Church,  Surrey.  London,  1881. 
(Printed  for  private  circulation.  Inaccurate.  See  Notes  and 
Queries,  vn  Series,  111,  241.)  [210 

Miles,  D.  H.  The  Dramatic  Museum  at  Columbia 
University.  {The  American  Review  of  Reviews,  xlvi,  67. 
Illustrations  of  models  of  early  playhouses.  See  No.  38, 
129.)  [211 

Mills,  C.  A.  Shakespeare  and  the  Globe  Theatre.  (The 
London  Times,  April  II,  1914.)  [212 

Model  of  the  Globe  Playhouse.  {The  Graphic,  London, 
lxxxii,  579;  Illustrated  London  News,  cxxxvi,  423.)     [213 

Morgan,  A.  The  Children's  Companies.  {Shakesperi- 
ana,  ix,  131.)  [214 

Murray,  J.  T.    English  Dramatic  Companies  in  the 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  449 

Towns  Outside  of  London,  15  50-1 600.   {Modern  Philology, 

",  S39-)  .  l2I5 

♦Murray,  J.  T.    English  Dramatic  Companies.    2  vols. 

London,  1910.  [216 

N.,  T.  C.  The  Old  Bridge  at  Newington.  {Notes  and 
Queries,  11  Series,  xn,  323.)  [217 

Nairn,  J.  A.  Boy-Actors  under  the  Tudors  and  Stuarts. 
{Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Literature,  11  Series, 
xxxii,  11.)  [218 

*Nichols,  J.  The  Progresses  and  Public  Processions  of 
Queen  Elizabeth.   4  vols.    London,  1823.  [219 

* The    Progresses,    Processions,    and    Magnificent 

Festivities  of  King  James  the  First.    4  vols.   London,  1828. 

[220 

Onions,  C.  T.  Shakespeare's  England.  2  vols.  Oxford, 
1916.  (Chap,  xxiv,  "Actors  and  Acting,"  by  Percy  Simp- 
son; chap,  xxv,  "The  Playhouse,"  by  William  Archer  and 
W.  J.  Lawrence;  chap,  xxvn,  section  7,  "Bearbaiting, 
Bull  Baiting,  and  Cockfighting,"  by  Sir  Sidney  Lee.  A 
popular  treatise.)  [221 

*Ordish,  T.  F.  Early  London  Theatres.  London,  1894. 
(For  an  important  review,  see  E.  K.  Chambers  in  The 
Academy,  August  24,  1895,  p.  139.)  [222 

* London    Theatres.     {The    Antiquary,    xi-xvi. 

"Theatre  and  Curtain,"  xi,  89;  "Rose,"  xi,  212;  "Bear 
Garden,"  xi,  243;  "Globe,"  xn,  41;  "Elizabethan  Stage," 
xn,  193;  "Swan,"  xn,  245;  "Blackfriars,"  xiv,  22,  55,  108; 
"Fortune,"  xiv,  205;  "Red  Bull,"  xiv,  236,  "Cockpit," 
xv>  935  "Whitefriars,"  xv,  262;  "Salisbury  Court,"  xvi, 
244.)  [223 

♦Overall,  W.  H.  and  H.  C.  Analytical  Index  to  the 
Series  of  Records  Known  as  the  Remembrancia.  Preserved 
among  the  Archives  of  the  City  of  London.  157Q-1664. 
London,  1878.   (See  No.  55.)  [224 

Overend,  G.  H.  On  the  Dispute  between  George  Mailer, 
Glazier  and  Trainer  of  Players  to  Henry  VIII,  and  Thomas 
Arthur,  his  Pupil.  {The  New  Shakspere  Society's  Transac- 
tions, 1877-79,  p.  425.)  [225 


45©  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Paget,  A.  H.  The  Elizabethan  Playhouses.  London, 
1891.    (Privately  printed,  8vo,  14  pp.)  [226 

*Parton,  J.  Some  Account  of  the  Hospital  and  Parish  of 
St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  Middlesex.  London,  1822.  (Contains 
parish  records  relating  to  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane.) 

[227 

Paul's.  See  Nos.  6,  12,  26,  101,  196,  201.  214,  218, 
297. 

*Pepys,  S.  The  Diary  of  Samuel  Pepys.  Edited  by 
Henry  B.  Wheatley.   9  vols.    London,  1893.  [228 

Phoenix.    See  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane. 

Pinks,  W.  J.  The  History  of  Clerkenwell.  Second  edition. 
London,  1880.    (The  Red  Bull  Playhouse,  p.  190.)        [229 

Pleadings  in  Rastell  v.  Walton,  a  Theatrical  Lawsuit, 
temp.  Henry  vin.  (Arber,  An  English  Garner,  Fifteenth 
Century  Prose  and  Verse,  1903,  p.  305.)  [230 

Plomer,  H.  R.  Fortune  Playhouse  (Notes  and  Queries, 
x  Series,  vi,  107.)  [231 

Pollock,  A.  The  Evolution  of  the  Actor.  {The  Drama, 
August  and  November,  1915,  and  November,  1916.)     [232 

Porter,  C.  Playing  Hamlet  as  Shakespeare  Staged  It 
in  1601.    {Ibid.,  August  and  November,  1915.)  [233 

Prynne,  W.   Histriomastix.    London,  1633.  [234 

Rankin,  G.  Early  London  Theatres.  (Notes  and  Queries, 
iv  Series,  vi,  306;  cf.  p.  423.)  [235 

Red  Bull.  See  Nos.  4,  91,  107,  126,  138,  139,  140,  142, 
147,  197,  223,  228,  229,  234,  303. 

Remembrancia.   See  Nos.  55,  224. 

*Rendle,  W.  The  Bankside,  Southwark,  and  the  Globe 
Playhouse.  (In  Furnivall's  edition  of  Harrison's  Description 
of  England,  Part  11,  Book  iii.  See  No.  121.  Deals  with  the 
Swan,  Bear  Garden,  Hope,  Rose,  and  Globe.)  [236 

* The  Globe  Playhouse.    (Walford's  Antiquarian, 

vin,  209.)  [237 

Paris  Garden   and   Christ  Church,   Blackfriars. 

(Notes  and  Queries,  vn  Series,  in,  241,  343,  442.)  [238 

Philip  Henslowe.   (The  Genealogist,  iv,  149.)  [239 

* The  Playhouses  at  Bankside  in  the  Time  of 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  451 

Shakespeare.  (The  Antiquarian  Magazine  and  Bibliogra- 
pher, vii,  207,  274;  viii,  55.)  [240 

Rendle,  W.  Old  Southwark  and  its  People.  London, 
1878.  [241 

The    Swan    Playhouse,    Bankside,   circa    1596. 

(Notes  and  Queries,  vii  Series,  vi,  221.)  [242 

*Rendle,  W.  and  P.  Norman.  The  Inns  of  Old  South- 
wark and  Their  Associations.   London,  1888.  [243 

*Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Historical  Manu- 
scripts.  London,  1870-.   (See  No.  163.)  [244 

Rimbault,  E.  F.  The  Old  Cheque-Booh,  or  Book  of  Re- 
membrance, of  the  Chapel  Royal  from  1561  to  1744.  ( The 
Camden  Society,  1872.)  [245 

Who  was  "Jack  Wilson"  the  Singer  of  Shake- 
speare's Stage?  London,  1846.  (Cf.  The  Shakespeare  Soci- 
ety's Papers,  11,  33.)  [246 

Rose.  See  Nos.  24,  46,  63,  64,  67,  143,  144,  161,  222,  223, 
236,  239,  240,  241,  257,  263,  300,  302,  304,  316. 

*Rye,  W.  B.  England  as  Seen  by  Foreigners  in  the  Days 
of  Elizabeth  and  James  I.   London,  1865.  [247 

Salisbury  Court.  See  Nos.  4,  7,  19,  72,  86,  91,  99,  119, 
147,  197,  223,  228. 

Schelling,  F.  E.  "An  Aery  of  Children,  Little  Eyases." 
(The  Queen's  Progress  and  Other  Elizabethan  Sketches, 
Boston  and  New  York,  1904,  chap,  v.)  [248 

The  Elizabethan  Theatre.   (Lippincott's  Monthly 

Magazine,  lxix,  309.)  [249 

Shakespeare's  England.   See  No.  221. 

Sheppard,  E.  The  Old  Royal  Palace  of  Whitehall.  Lon- 
don and  New  York,  1902.  [250 

The  Site  of  the  Globe  Theatre,  Bankside.  (The  Builder, 
March  26,  1910,  p.  353.)  [251 

Smith,  W.  H.  Bacon  and  Shakespeare.  An  Inquiry 
Touching  Players,  Playhouses,  and  Play-Writers  in  the  Days 
of  Elizabeth.   London,  1857.  [252 

Spiers,  W.  L.  An  Autograph  Plan  by  Wren.  (The  Lon- 
don Topographical  Record,  1903.  Concerns  Whitehall  Pal- 
ace and  the  Cockpit.)  [253 


452 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


State  Papers.   See  Nos.  35,  192. 

Statutes  of  the  Realm.  Record  Commission.  9  vols. 
London,  1810-28.  [254 

Stephenson,  H.  T.  Shakespeare's  London.  New  York, 
1905.    (Chap,  xiv,  "The  Theatres.")  [255 

The   Study   of  Shakespeare.    New   York,    191 5. 

(Chap,  in,  "The  Playhouses.")  [256 

*Stopes,  C.  C.  Burbage  and  Shakespeare's  Stage.  Lon- 
don, 1913.  [257 

The  Burbages  and  the  Transportation  of  "The 

Theatre."   {The  Athenaum,  October  16,  1909,  p.  470.)  [258 

Burbage's  "Theatre."    {The  Fortnightly  Review, 

xcn,  149.)  [259 

Dramatic  Records  from  the  Privy  Council  Regis- 
ter, James  I  and  Charles  I.  (The  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch, 
xlviii,  103.   See  No.  54.)  [260 

Giles    and    Christopher    Alleyn    of    Holywell. 

{Notes  and  Queries,  x  Series,  xn,  341.)  [261 

"The  Queen's  Players"  in  1536.  {The  Athenaum, 

July  24,  1914.)  [262 

The  Rose  and  the  Swan,  1597.  {The  Stage,  Janu- 
ary 6,  1910.  The  documents  here  summarized  are  printed 
in  full  in  No.  257  and  again  in  No.  302.)  [263 

Shakespeare's     Environment.       London,      1914. 

(Chapters  on  William  Hunnis,  Burbage's  "Theatre,"  and 
The  Transportation  of  Burbage's  "Theatre.")  [264 

*  Shakespeare's    Fellows    and    Followers.     (The 

Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  92.)  [265 

The  Site  of  the  Globe.    {Notes  and  Queries,  xi 

Series,  xi,  447.)  [266 

"The  Theatre."     {Archiv  fur  das  Studium  der 

Neueren  Sprachen  und  Literaturen,  cxxiv,  129.)  [267 

William  Hunnis.     (The  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch, 

xxvii,  200.)  [268 

William   Hunnis.     {The  Athenaum,   March   31, 

1900.)  [269 

William  Hunnis  and  the  Revels  of  the  Chapel 

Royal.  Louvain,  1910.  [270 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


453 


*Stow,  J.  A  Survey  of  London.  Edited  by  C.  L.  Kings- 
ford.   2  vols.   Oxford,  1908.  [271 

* A  Survey  of  the  Cities  of  London  and  Westminster 

.  .  .  Corrected,  Improved,  and  Very  Much  Enlarged  .  .  .  by 
John  Strype.    2  vols.    London,  1720.  [272 

* Annates,  or  A  Generall  Chronicle  of  England, 

Continued  by  Edmund  Howes.   London,  163 1.  [273 

Strutt,  J.  Sports  and  Pastimes  of  the  People  of  England. 
London,  1801.  [274 

Strype,  J.   See  No.  272. 

The  Anatomy  of  Abuses.    Edited  by  F.  J.  Furni- 

vall,  for  The  New  Shakspere  Society.  London,  1877-79. 
(There  is  an  earlier  edition  by  J.  P.  Collier,  1870.)       [275 

Swan.  See  Nos.  9,  31,  46,  123,  133,  135,  144,  193,  210, 
214,  222,  223,  236,  238,  240,  241,  242,  257,  263,  302,  306. 

Symonds,  J.  A.  Shakespeare's  Predecessors.  London, 
1883.  (Chap,  vin,  "Theatres,  Playwrights,  Actors,  and 
Playgoers.")  [276 

Theatre,  Burbage's.  See  Nos.  28,  70,  96,  134,  150,  151, 
222,  223,  257,  258,  259,  261,  264,  267,  277,  290. 

The  Theater;  a  Middlesex  Sessions  Record  Touching 
James  Burbage's  "Theater."  {The  Athenaum,  February 
12,  1887,  p.  233.)  [277 

*Thompson,  E.  N.  S.  The  Controversy  between  the  Puri- 
tans and  the  Stage.  New  York,  1903.  [278 

Thornbury,  G.  W.  Shakespeare's  England.  2  vols. 
London,  1856.    (Vol.  11,  chap,  x,  "The  Theatre.")        [279 

Thorndike,  A.  H.  Shakespeare's  Theatre.  New  York, 
1916.    (Chap,  in,  "The  Playhouses.")  [280 

Tiler,  A.  The  History  and  Antiquities  of  St.  Saviours. 
London,  1765.  [281 

Tomlins,  T.  E.  A  New  Document  Regarding  the  Au- 
thority of  the  Master  of  the  Revels.  {The  Shakespeare 
Society's  Papers,  in,  I.  The  document  is  reprinted  in  No. 
103.)  [282 

The  Original  Patent  for  the  Nursery  of  Actors 

and  Actresses  in  the  Reign  of  Charles  II.    {Ibid.,  in,  162.) 

[283 


454  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*Tomlins,  T.  E.  Origin  of  the  Curtain  Theatre,  and 
Mistakes  Regarding  It.  (The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers, 
I,  29.)  [284 

Three  New  Privy  Seals  for  Players  in  the  Time  of 

Shakespeare.    (Ibid.,  iv,  41.)  [285 

Tyson,  W.  Heming's  Players  at  Bristol  in  the  Reign  of 
Henry  VIII.     (Ibid.,  m,  13.)  [286 

Victoria  History  of  London.   London,  1909.  [287 

*Wallace,  C.  W.  The  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars 
1397-1603.  Lincoln  [Nebraska],  1908.  (Originally  printed 
in  University  Studies,  University  of  Nebraska,  1908.)       [288 

* The  Evolution  of  the  English  Drama  up  to  Shake- 
speare, with  a  History  of  the  First  Blackfriars  Theatre. 
(Schriften  der  Deutschen  Shakespeare-Gesellschaft,  Band  iv. 
Berlin,  1912.)  [289 

* The  First  London  Theatre,  Materials  for  a  His- 
tory. (University  Studies,  University  of  Nebraska,  vol.  xn. 
Lincoln,  Nebraska,  1913.)  [290 

Gervase  Markham,  Dramatist.  (The  Shake- 
speare Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  345.  Cf.  J.  Q.  Adams,  in  Modern 
Philology,  x,  426.)  [291 

* Globe    Theatre   Apparel.     [London.]     Privately 

printed,  August,  1909.  (For  the  nature  of  the  contents  see 
the  London  Times,  November  30,  1909,  p.  12;  and  the 
Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  239.)  [292 

Keysar  v.  Burbage  and  Others.   Privately  printed, 

1910.  (These  documents  are  included  in  the  author's 
Shakespeare  and  his  London  Associates,  No.  297.)  [293 

A  London  Pageant  of  Shakespeare's  Time.   (The 

London  Times,  March  28,  191 3.)  [294 

New       Shakespeare       Discoveries.        (Harper's 

Monthly  Magazine,  cxx,  489.   See  No.  297.)  [295 

Old  Blackfriars  Theatre.    (The  London   Times, 

September  12,  1906;  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  Septem- 
ber 24,  1906.)  [296 

* Shakespeare    and    His    London    Associates    as 

Revealed  in  Recently  Discovered  Documents.  (University 
Studies,  University  of  Nebraska,  x,  261.)  [297 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


455 


Wallace,  C.  W.  Shakespeare  and  the  Blackfriars  The- 
atre. {The  Century  Magazine,  September,  1910.  The  doc- 
uments on  which  this  popular  article  is  based  may  be 
found  in  Nos.  289  and  297.)  [298 

* Shakespeare    and    the    Globe.     (The    London 

Times,  October  2  and  4,  1909.  Deals  with  the  Osteler- 
Heminges  documents,  and  the  site  of  the  Globe.  These 
documents  Mr.  Wallace  has  privately  printed  in  Advance 
Sheets  from  Shakespeare,  The  Globe,  and  Blackfriars,  The 
Shakespeare  Head  Press,  1909,  whence  they  were  printed  in 
the  Shakespeare  Jahrbuch,  xlvi,  235.)  [299 

* Shakespeare    and    the    Globe.     (The    London 

Times,  April  30  and  May  1,  1914.)  [300 

Shakspere's  Money  Interest  in  the  Globe  The- 
atre. {The  Century  Magazine,  August,  1910.  The  docu- 
ments on  which  this  popular  article  is  based  may  be  found 
in  No.  297.)  [301 

* The  Swan  Theatre  and  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's 

Servants.  {Englische  Studien,  xliii,  340.  See  Nos.  257, 
263.)  [302 

* Three  London  Theatres  of  Shakespeare's  Time. 

{University  Studies,  University  of  Nebraska,  ix,  287.)  [303 

*Warner,  G.  F.  Catalogue  of  the  Manuscripts  and  Muni- 
ments of  Alleyn's  College  of  God's  Gift  at  Dulzvich.  [London], 
1881.  [304 

Wheatley,  H.  B.  London,  Past  and  Present.  .  .  .  Based 
upon  the  Handbook  of  London  by  the  late  Peter  Cunningham. 
London  and  New  York,  1891.    (See  No.  81.)  [305 

* On  a  Contemporary  Drawing  of  the  Interior  of 

the  Swan  Theatre,  1596.  {The  Nezv  Shakspere  Society's 
Transactions,  1887-90,  p.  213.)  [306 

Whitefriars.  See  Nos.  5,  6,  7,  19,  43,  60,  61,  86,  141, 
144,  189,  196,  201,  214,  218,  223,  239,  287,  293,  297. 

*Wilkinson,  R.  Londina  Illustrata.  2  vols.  London, 
1819-25.  (The  second  volume  is  entitled  Theatrum  Illus- 
trata.) [307 

Wilson,  J.  D.  Life  in  Shakespeare's  England.  Cam- 
bridge, 191 1.    (Chap,  vn,  "The  Theatre.")  [308 


456  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*Wilson,  J.  D.  The  Puritan  Attack  upon  the  Stage. 
( The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature,  vol.  vi.)     [309 

*\Yinwood,  R.  Memorials  of  Affairs  of  State.  3  vols. 
London,  1725.  [310 

Woolf,  A.  H.  Shakespeare  and  the  Old  Southwark  Play- 
houses: a  Lecture.  London,  1903.  (20  pp.,  8vo,  privately- 
printed.)  [311 

Wotton,  Sir  H.   Reliquiae  Wottoniana.   London,  1651. 

[312 
Wright,  G.  R.    The  English  Stage  in  the  Year  1638. 
{The  Journal  of  the  British  Archceological  Association,  xvi, 
275;  reprinted  in  the  author's  Archaologic  and  Historic 
Fragments,  London,  1887.)  [313 

^  *Wright,  J.  Historia  Histrionica,  London,  1699.  (Re- 
printed in  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  vol.  xv.)  [314 
Wright,  T.  Queen  Elizabeth  and  Her  Times.  2  vols. 
London,  1838.  [315 
*Young,  W.  The  History  of  Dulzuich  College,  with  a  Life 
of  the  Founder,  Edward  Alleyn,  and  an  Accurate  Transcript 
of  his  Diary,  161 7-1622.  2  vols.  London,  1889.  (Edition 
limited  to  250  copies,  privately  printed  for  the  author.) 

[316 


MAPS  AND  VIEWS  OF 
LONDON 


Crace,  J.  G.  A  Catalogue  of  Maps,  Plans,  and  Views  of 
London,  Westminster,  and  Southwark,  Collected  and  Ar- 
ranged by  Frederick  Crace.  London,  1878.  (This  collection 
of  maps  is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  The  Catalogue  is 
not  always  trustworthy.) 

Gomme,  L.  The  Story  of  London  Maps.  {The  Geographi- 
cal Journal,  London,  1908,  xxxi,  489,  616.) 

Martin,  W.  A  Study  of  Early  Map-Views  of  London. 
{The  Antiquary,  London,  1909,  xlv,  337,  406.  See  also 
Home  Counties  Magazine,  ix.) 

II 

Van  den  Wyngaerde,  A.  View  of  London,  Westmin- 
ster, and  Southwark.  (The  original  drawing,  made  about 
1530,  is  now  preserved  in  the  Sutherland  Collection  in  the 
Bodleian  Library.  A  reproduction  in  three  sections  will  be 
found  in  Besant's  London  in  the  Time  of  the  Tudors.) 

Braun,  G.,  and  F.  Hogenbergius.  Londinum  Feracis- 
simi  Anglia  Regni  Metropolis.  (In  Civitates  Orbis  Terrarum, 
Cologne,  1572.  The  map  is  based  on  an  original,  now  lost, 
drawn  between  1554  and  1558;  see  Alfred  Marks,  The 
Athenaum,  March  31,  1906.) 

Agas,  R.  Civitas  Londinum.  (This  map,  executed  about 
1570,  is  based  on  the  same  original  map,  1554-58,  made  use 
of  by  Braun  and  Hogenbergius,  although  Agas  has  intro- 
duced a  few  changes.  The  two  earliest  copies  are  in  Guild- 
hall, London,  and  in  the  Pepysian  Library  at  Cambridge. 
The  student  should  be  warned  against  Vertue's  reproduc- 


458     MAPS   AND   VIEWS   OF   LONDON 

tion,  often  met  with.  The  best  reproduction  is  that  by  The 
London  Topographical  Society,  1905.) 

Norden,  J.  London.  (In  Speculum  Britannia,  an  His- 
torical and  Choro graphical  Description  of  Middlesex.  By 
the  Travaile  and  View  of  John  Norden.  London,  1593.  The 
map  was  engraved  by  Pieter  Vanden  Keere.) 

Delaram,  F.  View  of  London.  (In  the  background  of  an 
engraving,  made  about  1603,  representing  King  James  on 
horseback.) 

Hondius,  J.  London.  (A  small  view  of  the  city  set  in  the 
large  map  of  "The  Kingdome  of  Great  Britaine  and  Ire- 
land "  printed  in  John  Speed's  Theatre  of  the  Empire  of  Great 
Britaine,  London,  161 1.  The  plate  is  dated  1610,  but  the 
inset  view  of  London  seems  to  have  been  based  on  an  earlier 
view,  now  lost,  representing  the  city  as  it  was  in  or  before 
1605.  Apparently  the  views,  in  the  Delaram  portrait  of 
King  James,  and  on  the  title-pages  of  Henry  Holland's 
Herowlogia,  1620,  and  Sir  Richard  Baker's  Chronicle,  1643, 
were  based  also  on  this  lost  view.) 

Visscher,  C.  J.  London.  (This  splendid  view  was  printed 
in  1616;  but  it  was  drawn  several  years  earlier,  and  repre- 
sents the  city  as  it  was  in  or  before  161 3.) 

Merian,  M.  London.  (In  J.  L.  Gottfried's  Neuwe 
Archontologia  Cosmica,  Frankfurt  am  Mayn,  1638.  Based 
mainly  on  Visscher's  View,  but  with  additions  from  some 
other  earlier  view  not  yet  identified.) 

[Ryther,  A.]  The  Cittie  of  London.  (This  map,  errone- 
ously attributed  to  Ryther  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  Crace 
Collection,  is  often  misdated  1604.  It  was  made  between 
1630  and  1640;  see  Notes  and  Queries,  iv  Series,  ix,  95; 
vi  Series,  xn,  361,  393;  vn  Series,  111,  no,  297,  498.) 

Hollar,  W.  View  of  London.  (The  View  is  dated  1647; 
Hollar  was  in  banishment  from  England  between  the  years 
1643  and  1652.  Excellently  reproduced  by  The  London 
Topographical  Society,  1907.) 

[?  Hollar,  W.]  London.  (In  James  Howell's  Londino- 
polis,  London,  1657.  This  view  is  a  poor  copy  of  Merian's 
splendid  view,  1638.  Though  generally  attributed  to 
Hollar,  it  is  unsigned.) 


MAPS   AND  VIEWS   OF   LONDON     459 

Faithorne,  W.,  and  R.  Newcourt.  An  Exact  Delinea- 
tion of  the  Cities  of  London  and  Westminster,  and  the  Suburbs 
Thereof.  London,  1658.  (Reproduced  by  The  London 
Topographical  Society,  1905.) 

Porter,  T.  Map  of  London  and  Westminster.  (About 
1660.  Probably  based  on  the  earlier  map,  1630-40,  mis- 
takenly ascribed  to  Ryther.  Reproduced  by  The  London 
Topographical  Society,  1898.) 

Moore,  J.  Map  of  London,  Westminster,  and  South- 
ward (Drawn  in  1662.  Reproduced  by  The  London  Topo- 
graphical Society,  1912.) 

Ogilby,  J.,  and  W.  Morgan.  A  Large  and  Accurate  Map 
of  the  City  of  London,  1677.  (Reproduced  by  The  London 
and  Middlesex  Archaeological  Society,  1895,  with  Ogilby's 
description  of  the  map,  entitled  London  Surveyed.) 

Morden,  R.,  and  P.  Lea.  London  13c.  Actually  Sur- 
vey'd,  1682.  (Reproduced  by  The  London  Topographical 
Society,  1904.) 

Rocque,  J.  An  Exact  Survey  of  the  Cities  of  London  and 
Westminster,  the  Borough  of  Southwark.  .  .  Begun  in  1741, 
Finished  in  1745,  and  published  in  174.6.  London,  1746. 
(An  excellent  reproduction  of  this  large  map  is  now  being 
issued  in  parts  by  The  London  Topographical  Society, 
I9I3--) 


INDEX 


Abuses,  1 1 6. 

Admiral-Prince  Henry- 1  Palsgrave- 

3  Prince  Charles's  Company: 

Admiral's    Company,    14,    16, 

61  n.,  72-73, 153-57,  174-75, 

176,  267,  269,  272,  281-82, 

289-90. 

Prince  Henry's  Company,  88, 

282-83,  295. 
Palsgrave's  Company,  283-87, 

290,  368,  369  n.,  375. 
Prince  Charles  II's  Company, 
287,    289-90,    303,    375-79, 
401. 
^Eschylus,  398. 
Agas,  Ralph,  328,  392. 
Aglaura,  404. 
Albemarle,  George  Monck,  I  Duke 

of,  365,  4°5- 
Albright,  V.  E.,  vii. 
Alchemist,  The,  419. 
Alcimedon,  422. 
Aldgate,  7,  10. 

Alexander  and  Campaspe,  109,  113. 
Alfonso,  232. 
Allen,  William,  305. 
Alleyn,  Edward,  57,  72,  85,  86,  133, 

140,  150-51,  153,  156,  246,  267- 

74,  281-87,  299,  319,  335-36. 
Alleyn,  Gyles,  30-38,  43,  47,  52, 

53,  58-65,  84,  182,  190,  199,  234. 
Alleyn,  Joan  Woodward,  ix,  151. 
Alleyn,  John,  S7~58,  72,  73- 
Alleyn,  Sara.  See  Gyles  Alleyn. 
All  is  True,  251-55.  SeeHenry  Fill. 
All  's  Lost  by  Lust,  309. 
Allyn,  Sir  William,  81. 
Alnwick  Castle,  173  n. 
Amends  for  Ladies,  346. 
Amphitheatre,  the  projected,  411- 

Andronicus,  140,  152. 
Androwes,  George,  313,  314,  315. 
Anjou,  Duke  of,  385. 
Anne  of  Denmark,  Queen  of  Eng- 


land, 300,  353.  Her  players,  see 
under  Worcester,  Children  of  the 
Chapel,  and  Children  of  Her 
Majesty's  Royal  Chamber. 

Antonio's  Revenge,  112. 

Apothecaries,  Society  of,  191  n. 

Architectural  Record,  The,  ix,  395. 

Aristophanes,  398. 

Armin,  Robert,  316. 

Arundel  and  Surrey,  Thomas 
Howard,  2  Earl  of,  426,  429,  430. 

Arundel's  Company,  70,  83. 

Arviragus  and  Philicia,  401. 

Ashen-tree  Court,  313. 

Ashley,  Sir  Anthony,  322. 

Aubrey,  John,  78,  364. 

Aunay,  Josias  d',  423. 

Bacon,  Anthony,  15. 

Bacon,  Sir  Edmund,  320. 

Bacon,  Francis,  15,  65. 

Baker,  Michael,  430. 

Baker,  Sir  Richard,  127,  146. 

Banks,  Jeremiah,  306. 

Banks's  horse,  13. 

Bankside,   28-29,   63,   64,    119  f., 

134  f.,  142  f.,  161  f.,  182-83,  185, 

238  f.,  267,  326  f. 
Banqueting-House    at     Whitehall, 

385-89. 
Barclay,    Perkins,    and  Company, 

265. 
Barry,  David  Lording,  313,  314-15, 

316,  317. 
Barry,  Lodowick.  See  David  Barry. 
Bartholomew  Fair,  325  n.,  330,  334. 
Bath,  71. 

Baxter,  Richard,  300-01. 
Bear  Alley,  340,  341. 
Bear  Garden  (First),   15,   119-33, 

145,  146,  146  n.,  159  n.,  167,  182, 

238,    244,    248,    326,    328,    329, 

332  ».,  336,  416. 
Bear  Garden  (Second).    See  Hope 

Playhouse. 


462 


INDEX 


Bear  Garden  Alley,  340,  341. 
Bear  Garden  Glass  House,  341  n. 
Bear  Garden  Square,  341. 
Beaumont,  Francis,  1 16,  304,  404. 
Beaven,  William,  293. 
Beddingfield,  Anne,  294. 
Beddingfield,  Christopher,  294. 
Beecher,  Sir  William,  230. 
Beeston,  Christopher,  158,  299-300, 

350-58,  374,  421. 
Beeston,  Mrs.  Elizabeth,  362. 
Beeston,  William,  358-61,  380-83. 
Beeston's   Boys.     See   King's   and 

Queen's  Company. 
Beggar's  Bush,  404. 
Bell,  Hamilton,  ix,  395-400. 
Bell  Inn,  1-17,  67. 
Bell  Savage  Inn,  1-17. 
Bermondsey,  Monastery  of,  161. 
Bethelem,  69. 

Betterton,  Thomas,  366,  406. 
Betterton,  Mrs.  Thomas,  406  n. 
Bevis,  133. 

Bird,  Theophilus,  350  n.,  381. 
Bird,  William,  170,  174. 
Bishop,  Nicholas,  57. 
Bishopsgate  Street,  7  f.,  67. 
Black  Book,  The,  73  n. 
Blackfriars    Playhouse    (First),    8, 

91-110,  113,  183,  194,  201,  202, 

204,  208,  311  n. 
Blackfriars  Playhouse  (Second),  59, 

74,  86,  93,  98  n.,  116,  117,  118, 

182-233,  250,  256,  260,  261,  311, 

312,  317,  319,  320,  324,  343,  350, 

355,  356,  36s,  369,  372  n.,  373, 

402,  403,  404,  428. 
Blackfriars  Playhouse  (Rosseter's). 

See  Rosseter's  Blackfriars. 
Blagrove,  Thomas,  369. 
Blagrove,    William,    368-72,    374, 

424. 
Bloody  Brother,  The,  363. 
Blount,  Thomas,  122. 
Boar's  Head  Inn,  Eastcheap,  7  n. 
Boar's  Head  Inn,  Whitechapel,  1- 

17,  87,  157-58,  159-    " 
Boar's  Head  Yard,  17. 
Bodley,  Sir  John,  256-57,  262. 
Bondman,  The,  382. 
Bonetti,  Rocho,  194-95. 
Boone,  Colonel,  382. 
Bourne,  Theophilus,  350  n. 


Bouverie  Street,  313. 

Bowes,  Sir  Jerome,  184. 

Bowman  (the  actor),  405  n. 

Box,  Edward,  160. 

Bradshaw,  Charles,  192. 

Braun,  G.,  and  F.    Hogenbergius, 

122. 
Brayne,  John,  39-58,  72,  78,  83, 

144,  234. 
Brayne,  Mrs.  Margaret,  43,  44  n., 

54-58. 
Brend,  Elizabeth,  264. 
Brend,  Matthew,  257,  262-63. 
Brend,  Sir  Nicholas,  238-39,  249, 

256. 
Brend,  Sir  Thomas,  240  n.,  249. 
Brend,  Thomas  (the  younger),  264. 
Bridges  Street,  408. 
Bristol,  172. 

Brockenbury,  Richard,  35. 
Brome,  Richard,  233,  361,  379. 
Bromvill,  Peter,  176. 
Brooke.   See  Cobham. 
Browker,  Hugh,  176-77. 
Brown,  Sir  Matthew,  256. 
Brown,  Rawdon,  279  n. 
Browne,  Robert,  318. 
Bruskett,  Thomas,  191,  195. 
Bryan,  Sir  Francis,  184. 
Bryan,  George,  73. 
Buc,  Sir  George,  321,  325,  343. 
Buchell,  Arend  van,  166. 
Buckhurst,  Robert,  Lord,   311-12, 

3H- 

Bull  Inn,  1-17,  67,  294  n. 

Burbage,  Cuthbert,  39  n.,  40,  45  n., 
49,  52,  54-65,  74,  84,  198,  199- 
200,  223,  224,  234-41,  249,  257, 
282. 

Burbage,  James,  II,  27-59,  65,  66, 
67,  70-74,  75,  78,  83,  91,  98  n., 
144,  161,  182-99,  202,  234. 

Burbage,  Mrs.  James,  56,  57,  63. 

Burbage,  Richard,  40,  57,  61,  62, 

63,  73,  74,  84,  1 1 1,  117,  HO,  198, 
199,  200-01,  204,  208  n.,  215, 
218,  223-25,  234-41,  249,  255, 
257,  261,  282,  317,  319,  325. 

Burghley,  William  Cecil,  Lord,  14, 
20,  69. 

Burgram,  John,  242-43. 

Burnell,  Henry,  418. 

Burt,  Nicholas,  363,  367. 


INDEX 


463 


Burt,  Thomas,  241-42. 
Busino,  Orazio,  130,  279. 
Bussy  D'Ambois,  400,  404. 
Buttevant,  Viscount,  313  n. 
Byron,  220,  316. 

C,  W.,  302. 

Cambridge,  67. 

Camden,  William,  350,  352. 

Campaspe,  109,  113. 

Campeggio,  Cardinal  Lorenzo,  186. 

Cape,  Walter,  55. 

Cardinal,  The,  406. 

Careless  Shepherdess,  The,  302. 

Carew,  Thomas,  302,  356. 

Carey.   See  Hunsdon. 

Carlell,  Lodowick,  404. 

Carleton,  Mrs.  Alice,  260. 

Carleton,  Sir  Dudley,  212  n.,  281, 
284,  388,  393. 

Carter,  Lane,  231. 

Cartwright,  William,  374. 

Castle,  Tavern,  348  n. 

Castlemaine,  Lady,  406. 

Catherine  of  Aragon,  Queen,  186. 

Cawarden,  Sir  Thomas,  96,  184, 
186-90,  193. 

Challes,  69-70,  83. 

Chalmers,  George,  137-38,  428. 

Chamberlain,  John,  212  n.,  252, 
260,  281,  284,  388,  392,  393. 

Chamberlain's  Company.  See 
Strange-Derby,  etc.,  company. 

Chambers,  E.  K.,  ix,  44  «.,  230  n., 
247. 

Chambers,  George,  206. 

Chambers,  Richard,  206. 

Chances,  The,  404. 

Changes,  The,  376-78. 

Chapel  Royal,  91  f.  See  also  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chapel. 

Chapman,  George,  116,  206,  217, 
220. 

Chappell,  John,  206. 

Charles  I,  227,  231,  301-02,  359, 
394.J9S,  4H,  424-  His  players, 
see  King's  and  Queen's  Company, 
King's  Revels  Company,  Prince 
Charles's  Company,  Strange- 
Derby,  etc.,  Company. 

Charles  II,  287,  405.  His  players, 
see  under  Admiral. 

Chasserau,  Peter,  75  n.,  79. 


Cheeke,  Sir  John,  96,  184,  190. 

Chettle,  Henry,  158. 

Cheyney,  Sir  Thomas,  the  Lord 
Warden,  184,  188. 

Children  of  Blackfriars.  See  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chapel,  etc. 

Children  of  Her  Majesty's  (Queen 
Anne's)  Royal  Chamber  of  Bris- 
tol, 215  n. 

Children  of  His  Majesty's  (James 
I's)  Revels  (at  Whitefriars),  224. 

Children  of  St.  Paul's,  91,  108-10, 
111-18,  217,  311  n.,  319. 

Children  of  the  Chapel  -  1  Queen's 
Revels  -  Revels  -  Whitefriars  -  2 
Queen's  Revels  Company: 

Children  of  the  Chapel  (at  First 
Blackfriars),    91-110,     m, 

113- 

Children  of  the  Chapel  (at 
Second  Blackfriars),  200-15, 
237,  249-50. 

1  Children  of  the  Queen's 
(Anne's)  Revels,  215-18, 
219,  311. 

Children  of  the  Revels  (or  of 
Blackfriars),  218-24,  3*4  n-> 
316-17. 

Children  of  Whitefriars,   318. 

2  Children  of  the  Queen'* 
(Anne's)  Revels,  1 1 7, 3 1 8-2 1, 
324,  342-46. 

Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels.  See 

under  Children  of  the  Chapel,  etc., 

and  under  Worcester-Queen,  etc. 
Children  of  Whitefriars.    See  under 

Children  of  the  Chapel,  etc. 
Children  of  Windsor  Chapel,  91- 

108,  in,  201. 
Cholmley,  John,  143-44,  l4&>  l4%  n-> 

234- 
Clerkenwell,  78,  88,  301,  294  f. 
Clifton,  Henry,  205-13. 
Clifton,  Thomas,  210-13. 
Clink,  the  Liberty  of  the,  124  f.,  135, 

142,  145,  161. 
Clough,  George,  53-54. 
Cobham,  George  Brooke,  Lord,  96, 

184. 
Cobham,  Henry  Brooke,  Lord,  184. 
Cobham,  William  Brooke,  Lord,  98, 

99,  184,  198,  199,  212  n. 
Cockpit-in-Court,  384-409,  420. 


464 


INDEX 


Cockpit  in  Dartmouth  Street,  408  n. 
Cockpit  Playhouse  in  Drury  Lane, 

291,  297  n.,  299,  300,  305,  348- 

67,  369,  373,  376  n.,  381  n.,  408  n., 

421-22,  431. 
Cokaine,  Sir  Aston,  233. 
Colefox,  Edwin,  34-35. 
Collett,  John,  256. 
Collier,  J.  P.,  vii,  76,  138,  230  n., 

322  ».,  377,  347  71.,  353  n.,  373  n. 
Columbia  University,  277. 
Condell,  Henry,  224,  238,  255,  257, 

258,  262,  355. 
Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Charles, 

Duke  of  Byron,  The,  220,  316. 
Constant  Maid,  The,  419. 
Conway,  Edward,  Lord,  414-17. 
Cooke,  William,  315. 
Cooper,  Lane,  ix. 
Corneille,  Pierre,  406  n. 
Cornishe,  John,  241-42. 
Cotton,  John,  412-14. 
Court  Beggar,  The,  361. 
Coventry,  Thomas,  414-17. 
Cranydge,  James,  13. 
Creed,  John,  366. 
Crew,  John,  406. 
Cromwell,  Oliver,  364,  405. 
Cross  Keys  Inn,  1-17,  68. 
Cruelly  of  the  Spaniards  in  Peru, The, 

365- 

Cunningham,  Peter,  322,  372,  374 
n.,  407  n. 

Cupid  and  Psyche,  113. 

Cupid's  Whirligig,  316. 

Curtain  Court,  79,  90. 

Curtain  Playhouse,  8,  10,  16,  26, 
32  n.,  46,  47,  61,  62,  69,  70,  72, 
75-90,  135,  144  n.,  155,  159,  167, 
172  n.,  174,  182,  200,  295,  296, 
297,  298  n.,  301,  355. 

Curtain  Road,  34,  90. 

Custom  of  the  Country,  The,  404. 

Cutwell,  11. 

Cynthia's  Revels,  209  n. 

Daborne,  Robert,  318,  324  n.,  325. 
Dancaster,  Thomas,  35. 
Daniel,  Samuel,  215  «.,  216. 
Davenant,   William,   309,   361-65, 

382,  424-3I- 
Davenant's  Projected  Theatre,  424- 

5*. 


Davenport,  Robert,  356. 

David,  John,  12. 

Davies,  James,  339. 

Day,  John  (playwright),  158,  220, 

315- 
Day,  John  (printer),  411. 
Deadman's  Place,  264. 
Dekker,  Thomas,  1 16,  158, 244, 278, 

298,  332  n. 
Delaram,  F.,  128,  146,  248,  248  n. 
De  Lawne,  William,  190. 
Derby,   Ferdinando  Stanley,  Earl 

of,  73,  153- 
Derby's     Company.      See     under 

Strange-Derby,  etc. 
Devonshire,  Charles  Blount,  Earl 

of,  216  n. 
De  Witt,  Johannes,  46,  77  n.,  146  n., 

165-68,  273. 
Ditcher,  Thomas,  242. 
Dixon,  Thomas,  412-17. 
Doctor  Faustus,  73. 
Dorchester,     Evelyn     Pierrepont, 

Marquis  of,  340. 
Dorset,  Edward  Sackville,  Earl  of, 

369-70,  375,  378-80. 
Dorset  House,  371. 
Dotridge,  Alice,  35. 
Doubtful  Heir,  The,  289,  419. 
Downes,  John,  307,  365,  366. 
Downton,  Thomas,  170,  174,  282. 
Dragon,  John,  34-35. 
Drayton,  Michael,  311-17. 
Droeshout,  Martin,  266. 
Drury  Lane,  309,  348  f.,  420  f. 
Dryden,  John,  417. 
Dublin  Theatre,  417-19. 
Duchy  Chamber,  189  f. 
Dudley,  Robert,   See  Leicester. 
Duke,  John,  158. 
Duke's  Theatre,  383  n. 
Dulwich  College,  ix,   133,   144  »., 

274,  283,  285  n.,  286-93. 
Dumb  Knight,  The,  316. 
Dun,  178. 

Dunstan,  James,  350  n. 
Du  Rocher,  R.  M.,  420  n. 
Duryer,  Pierre,  422  n. 
Dutch  Courtesan,  The,  196  n. 

Earthquake,  82-83. 
Eastcheap,  7  n.,  122. 
East  Smithfield,  410  f. 


INDEX 


465 


Eastward  Hoe,  217. 
Eaton,  Henry,  308. 
Elizabeth,    Princess    (daughter    of 

James  I),  393.    Her  players,  see 

Princess  Elizabeth's  Company. 
Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  91, 

108,  113-14,  158  «.,  171,  212  n., 

2ISj  385.  Her  players,  see  Queen's 

Company. 
Endimion  114. 
England's  Joy,  177-78. 
English  Traveller,  The,  277. 
Epicharmus,  398. 
Epicoene,  319,  405. 
Epicurus,  398. 
Erasmus,  Desiderius,  120. 
Essex,  44  n. 
Essex,  Robert  Devereux,  Earl  of, 

13,  216. 
Euripides,  398. 

Evans,  Henry,  107,  no,  192-225. 
Evelyn,  John,  338,  363,  405  n. 
Every  Man  in  His  Humour,  85. 
Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour,  246, 

247  n. 

Fair  Favourite,  The,  404. 
Faithorne,  W.,  348  «.,  392. 
Falcon  Stairs,  164. 
Family  of  Love,  The,  315. 
Farrant,  Anne,  104-10. 
Farrant,  Richard,  91-110,  183,  200, 

201,  202,  203,  204. 
Faunte,  William,  133. 
Fennor,  William,  177  n.,  332-34. 
Ferrers,  Captain,  366. 
Ferretti,  Francesco,  164. 
Ferrys,  173. 

Feuillerat,  A.,  IOI  n.,  186. 
Field,  John,  125. 
Field,    Nathaniel,    206,    237,    319, 

324  n.,  325,  342  n.,  346. 
Finsbury  Field,  28-38,  75,  81,  135, 

142,  268,  352. 
Fisher,  Edward,  381,  383. 
Fisher,  John,  285  n.,  387  n.,  396. 
Fitz-Stephen,  William,  120. 
Fleay,  F.  G.,  1 12, 1 15, 179  n.,  201  n., 

31m.,  323,  335  n.,  350  n.,  354  n., 

377,  402  «.,  416  n. 
Flecknoe,  Richard,  6,  7,   17,   in, 

311  n. 
Fleet  Street,  231,  314,  424  f. 


Fleetwood,  William,  20,  46,  69-70, 

7i- 

Fletcher,  Dr.,  172. 

Fletcher,  John,  251,  304,  325,  419. 

Floridor,  Josias,  401,  420-24. 

Fortescue,  Sir  John,  211. 

Fortune  Playhouse,  45,  85,  88,  156- 
57,  176,  177  n.,  229,  246,  259 
n.,  267-93,  295,  297,  298,  302, 
303,  327  n.,  333  n.,  353  n.,  364  n., 
368,  374,  375,  379,  3§i  n.,  425  n. 

Fortunes  of  Nigel,  The,  310  n. 

Fowler,  Thomas,  172,  410. 

Fox,  The,  404. 

Frederick  V,  Elector  Palatine  of 
Palsgrave,  393. 

French  Ambassador,  113  n.,  220- 
21,  261,  316. 

French  players,  401,  420-24. 

French  Players'  Theatre,  420-24. 

Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay, 
150. 

Frith,  Sir  Richard,  96,  190. 

Gabriel.   See  Spencer. 
Gaedertz,  Karl  T.,  167. 
Gardiner,  William,  34. 
Garrard,  G,  231,  232. 
Gasquine,  Susan,  159  n. 
Gayton,  Edmund,  303. 
Gazette,  The,  341  n. 
General,  The,  419. 
George  Yard,  313. 
Gerschow,  Frederic,  197,  208. 
Gibbon's  Tennis-Court  Playhouse, 

.3°9n- 
Gildersleeve,  Virginia  C,  320  n. 

Giles,  Nathaniel,  201-13,  220  n. 

Gill,  John,  300. 

Gill,  Richard,  300  n. 

Giolito,  Gabriel,  411. 

Giunti,  411. 

Glapthorne,  Henry,  369,  423. 

Globe  Playhouse,  65,  74,  85,  86, 
86  n.,  88,  112,  128,  146,  146  n., 
ISS,  IS6,  159  n.,  176,  180,  200, 
209,  210,  214  n.,  219  n.,  223,  224, 
227,  229,  233  n.,  234-66,  267, 
274-76,  282,  286,  289  7t.,  295,  297, 
298,  311  n.,  324,  328. 

Goad,  Christopher,  374. 

Godfrey  (Master  of  the  Bear  Gar- 
den), 337. 


466 


INDEX 


Godfrey,  W.  H.,  277  n. 

Golding  Lane,  88,  268  f. 

Goodman,  Nicholas,  180-81,  336. 

Gosson,  Stephen,  II,  47,  113. 

Goulston  Street,  17. 

Govell,  R.,  369  n. 

Gower,  Edward,  405. 

Grabu,  M.,  408. 

Grace  Church  Street,  7  f.,  67,  68. 

Grateful  Servant,  The,  349. 

Grave,  Thomas,  387. 

Graves,  T.  S.,  vii,  47  n.,  177  n. 

Gray,  Lady  Anne,  184. 

Greene,  Robert,  150. 

Greene,  Thomas,  296,  298-99. 

Greene's  Tu  Quoque,  298. 

Greenstreet,  J.,  317. 

Greenwich,  384. 

Greg,  W.  W.,  ix,  73,  148,  159  n., 

179  «•!  335  «•,  377- 
Grigges,  John,  48. 
Grymes,  Thomas,  206. 
Guildford,  Lady  Jane,  184. 
Gunnell,  Richard,  368-72,  374,  375. 
Gwalter,  William,  285  n. 
Gyles,  Thomas,  113-15,  206. 

Hall,  Ralph,  308. 

Hamlet  (Pre-Shakespearean),  74, 
140. 

Hamlet  (Shakespeare),  208-10, 
212  n.,  248  «.,  261. 

Hammon,  Thomas,  395. 

Hampton  Court,  384,  385,  401,  402, 
404. 

Harberte,  Thomas,  81. 

Harington,  Sir  John,  69. 

Harper,  Sir  George,  184. 

Harrison,  Joan,  34—35. 

Harrison,  Thomas   (Colonel),  304. 

Hart,  William,  304,  363. 

Harvey,  Gabriel,  48. 

Hathaway,  Richard,  158. 

Hatton,  Sir  Christopher  (Vice- 
Chamberlain),  70. 

Hatton  House,  363. 

Haukins,  William,  85. 

Hawkins,  Alexander,  211,  213,  214, 
215. 

Hayward,  John,  411. 

Heath,  John,  297. 

Hector  of  Germany,  The,  89,  321  n. 

Heminges,  John,  62,  73,  84,  204, 


208  n.,  223,   224,   235-41,   255, 
257,  258,  261-62,  319,  355. 

Heminges,  Thomasine,  261. 

Henrietta  Maria,  Queen  of  Eng- 
land, 232-33,  420-22.  Her  play- 
ers, see  Queen's  Company,  King's 
and  Queen's  Company. 

Henry  IV,  7  n.,  404. 

Henry  V  (not  Shakespeare's),  13. 

Henry  V  (Shakespeare),  77  n.,  348. 

Henry  VI,  150. 

Henry  VIII,  251-55,  391  n. 

Henry  VIII,  29,  186,  391. 

Henry,  Prince  of  Wales,  282-83, 
392—93.  His  players,  see  under 
Admiral. 

Henslowe,  Agnes,  283. 

Henslowe,  Philip,  73,  85,  140,  140  n. 
142-60,  161,  166,  174-75,  179, 
213  n.,  234,  244-46,  267-74,  281- 
83,  321-22,  324-35>  342-43,  346. 

Henslowe,  William,  268  n. 

Hentzner,  Paul,  131,  162. 

Herbert,  Sir  Henry,  89,  225,  232, 
250,  301,  307  n.,  351  n.,  357  n., 
358,  359,  360,  360  n.,  367,  368, 
369,  373,  374,  376,  377,  377  «•, 
378,  380,  381,  400,  401  n.,  403, 
412  n.,  420-24. 

Herbert,  Sir  Philip,  392. 

Herbert,  Thomas,  81. 

Heme,  John,  370,  380. 

Heme,  John  (the  younger),  380-81. 

Heton,  Richard,  356  n.,  357  n.,  378— 
80,  427. 

Heywood,  Thomas,  158,  235  n., 
247  n.,  277  n.,  298-99,  382,  394- 

95- 
Hide,  John,  51,  53-55,  70  n. 
High  Street,  Southwark,  121. 
Hill,  John,  50. 
Hoby,  Sir  Edward,  220. 
Hoby,  Sir  Philip,  184. 
Hockley-in-the-hole,     Clerkenwell, 

34°- 
Hogarth,  William,  409  n. 
Hog  Hath  Lost  His  Pearl,  The,  320. 
Holinshed,  Raphael,  385. 
Holland,  Aaron,  294-96. 
Holland,  Henry,  127,  146. 
Hollandia,  Dona  Britannica,  180. 
Holland's  Leaguer  (Goodman),  180, 

336. 


INDEX 


467 


Holland's  Leaguer  (Marmion),  259, 

375,  377,  415- 
Hollar,  W.,  181,  259,  329-30. 
Hollywell  Lane,  81. 
Holywell  Priory,  30  f.,  75  f.,  88, 

182,  183. 
Honduis,  J.,  127,   146,  265,  329  n. 
Hope    Playhouse,    46,     128,     133, 

146  n.,  166,  179,  180,  248  n.,  322, 

324-41,  346,  355. 
Horton,  Joan,  143. 
Houghton,  John,  129. 
Housekeepers,    225,    234   n.,    236, 

237  n.,  351  n.,  421  n. 
Howard,   Charles,   the    Lord    Ad- 
miral.   See  Nottingham. 
Howell,  James,  248,  329  n. 
Howes,  Edmund,  7,  45  n.,  Ill,  141, 

251,  257,  285,  349,  350,  352,  372. 

See  also  Phillipps. 
Humour  Out  of  Breath,  315. 
Hungarian  Lion,  The,  368. 
Hunks,  Harry,  121. 
Hunnis,  William,  102-10,  202,  203. 
Hunsdon,  George  Carey,  Lord,  184, 

189,  198,  199,  212  n.,  214. 
Hunsdon,  Henry  Carey,  Lord,  14, 

68  n.,  71,  184. 
Hunsdon's     Company     (not     the 

Strange-Derby,  etc.  Company), 

69-71. 
Hunsdon's   Company.      See  under 

Strange-Derby,  etc.  Company. 
Hutchinson,   Christopher,   350  n., 

362. 
Hynde,  John,  11. 

Ianthe,  406. 

Ibotson,  Richard,  II. 

Inner  Temple  Masque,  The,  350. 

Isle  of  Dogs,    The,   84,   154,   170- 

75- 
Isle  ofGuls,  The,  220. 
Italian  players,  21. 

Jack  Drum's  Entertainment,  115. 

James  I,  215,  217,  218,  221,  227, 
250,  258,  281,  310  n.,  316,  387, 
392,  413,  416.  His  players,  see 
Children  of  His  Majesty's  Revels, 
King's  Revels  Company,  Strange- 
Derby,  etc.  Company. 

James,  William,  264. 


Jeaffreson,  J.  C,  85,  410. 

Jeffes,  Anthony,  174  n. 

Jeffes,  Humphrey,  174  n. 

Jerningham,  Sir  Henry,  184,  189. 

Jew,  The,  11. 

Jew  of  Malta,  The,  140,  150,  395. 

Johnson,  Henry,  60. 

Johnson,  Peter,  191-92,  196. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  264. 

Jones,  Inigo,  389,  395-400. 

Jones,  Richard,  168,  174,  318. 

Jones,  Robert,  343. 

Jonson,  Ben,  78,  84,  85,  171-73, 
174  n.,  206,  207,  217,  226,  244, 
246,  247,  251,  255,  259,  319,  325, 
330,  334,  419,  424. 

Joyner,  William,  194.     . 

Julius  Ccesar,  404. 

Just  Italian,  The,  356. 

Katherens,  Gilbert,  326-30. 

Kempe,  Anthony,  189. 

Kempe,  William,  62,  73,  84,  115, 
XS8,  235-40,  298. 

Kelly,  William,  17. 

Kendall,  Richard,  177  n.,  333  n. 

Kendall,  Thomas,  213-22. 

Kendall,  William,  213  n. 

Kenningham,  Robert,  41. 

Keysar,  Robert,  117,  218-19,  222- 
24,  317-20. 

Kiechel,  Samuel,  47,  77. 

Kildare,  Earl  of,  419. 

Killigrew's  playhouse,  382. 

Kinaston,  Edward,  207,  366. 

Kingdom's  Weekly  Intelligencer, 
The,  291,  293  n. 

King  Lear,  261. 

King  Leir,  153. 

Kingman,  Philip,  343. 

King's  and  Queen's  Company  (or 
Beeston's  Boys),  357-62. 

King's  Company.  See  under  Strange- 
Derby,  etc. 

King's  (James  I's)  Revels  Com- 
pany, 311-18. 

King's  (Charles  I's)  Revels  Com- 
pany, 287,  374,  377-79- 

Kingsland  Spittle,  89. 

Kingston,  Lady  Mary,  189. 

Kingston,  Sir  William,  184. 

Kirkham,  Edward,  1 16,  208  «., 
213-22,  226. 


468 


INDEX 


Kirkman,    Francis,    296-97,    305, 

3S8-S9- 
Knowles,  John,  241-42. 
Kymbre,  41. 

Kynaston,  Edward,  207,  366. 
Kyrkham,  Sir  Robert,  184. 

Ladies1  Priviledge,  The,  423. 

Lady   Elizabeth's   Company.      See 

Princess  Elizabeth's  Company. 
Lady  Mother,  The,  369. 
La  Fevre  de  la  Boderie,  Antoine, 

220-22,  316  n. 
Lamb,  Charles,  299. 
Lambarde,  William,  15. 
Lambeth,  121,  161. 
Landgartha,  418. 
Laneham,  Robert,  128. 
Langley,  Francis,  161,  170-76,  234. 
Lanham,  John,  67,  69,  80  n. 
Lanman,  Henry,  78-82,  83,  86,  87, 

144,  234. 
Lanteri,  Edward,  265  n. 
Lau,  Hurfries  de,  423. 
Laud,  William,  228-30. 
Lawrence,  W.  J.,  vii,  48  n.,   112, 

177  n.,  293   n.,  313   n.,  350  n., 

365  n.,  398,  408,  423  n. 
Leaden  Hall,  12. 
Lee,    Sir   Sidney,    124   n.,   294   n., 

350  n.,  408  n. 
Le  Febure  (or  Fevure),  422-23. 
Leicester,  Robert  Dudley,  Earl  of, 

106-07. 
Leicester's  Company,  22,  66,  67,  71, 

80  n. 
Lennox,  James  Stuart,  4  Duke  of, 

232. 
Lennox,  Ludovick  Stuart,  2  Duke 

of,  261. 
Lenton,  Francis,  356. 
Leveson,  Sir  Richard,  405. 
Levison,  William,  240. 
Lewes,  Thomas,  382. 
Lilleston,  Thomas,  366. 
Lincolns,  Inn   Fields,  348  n.,  352, 

382,  414  f. 
Lodge,  Thomas,  74. 
London's  Lamentation  for  her  Sins, 

302. 
Long,  Maurice,  81. 
Lorkin,  Thomas,  254,  389. 
Lost  Lady,  The,  404. 


Loves  and  Adventures  of  Clerico  and 

Lozia,  The,  359. 
Love's    Mistress,    or    the    Queen's 

Masque,  382. 
Lowin,  John,  158,  363,  400. 
Loyal  Protestant,  The,  339. 
Loyal  Subject,  The,  366. 
Ludgate,  7  f.,  226. 
Ludlow,  71. 

Luther,  Martin,  113  n.,  411. 
Lyly,  John,   109-10,    112,   1 13-14, 

194,  202. 

Machiavel,  411. 

Machin,  Lewis,  316. 

Machyn,  Henry,  124  n. 

Mackaye,  Steele,  398. 

Madden,  Sir  Frederick,  130. 

Madison  Square  Theatre,  398. 

Maiden  Lane,  88,  144,  243  f.,  341. 

Malcolm,  J.  P.,  339. 

Malone,  Edmund,  vii,  77,  89,  160  n., 

225,  248,  367,  373,  375-76,  42°- 
Manchester,     Edward     Montagu, 

Earl  of,  122,  337. 
Mankind,  2-4. 
Manningham,  John,  178. 
Mantzius,  Karl,  48  n. 
Markham,  Gervais,  316. 
Marlowe,  Christopher,  73. 
Marmion,    Shackerley,    259,    375, 

376,  377,  4*5- 
Marston,  John,  85  n.,  112,  115,  116, 

196  n.,  216,  217-18,  223. 
Martin,  William,  265  n. 
Martin    Marprelate    Controversy, 

114. 
Martin's  Month's  Mind,  \o,  69. 
Mason,  John,  315,  316. 
Masque,  The,  369  n. 
Massinger,  Philip,  325,  382  n. 
Mathews,  John,  14. 
Meade,  Jacob,  326-36,  346. 
Measure  for  Measure,  388. 
Melise,  ou  Les  Princes  Reconnus,  La, 

420. 
Mercer,  Will,  338. 
Merchant  of  Dublin,  The,  418. 
Mercurius  Fumigosus,  307  n. 
Mercurius  Politicus,  292. 
Meres,  Francis,  175  n.,  176. 
Merian,  M.,   146  n.,   180  n.,  248, 

328  n. 


INDEX 


469 


Merry,  Edward,  192. 

Merry  Devil  of  Edmonton,  The,  404. 

Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,  The,  388, 

404. 
Midas,  112. 
Middlesex   Street,  17. 
Middleton,  Thomas,  1 16, 207, 209  n., 

278,  3 IS,. 3SO,  419- 
Mohun,  Michael,  304. 
Monk,  General.   See  Albemarle. 
Monkaster.   See  Mulcaster. 
Montmorency,  Duke  of,  385. 
Moore,  Mr.  (of  Pepy's  Diary),  405. 
Moor  Field,  81. 
Moor  of  Venice,  The,  367,  387. 
More,  Sir  Christopher,  184. 
More,    Sir   William,    96-110,    113, 

184,  189-90,  208. 
Morocco  Ambassador,  339. 
Morris,  Isbrand,  241-42. 
Motteram,  John,  206. 
Mountjoy,  Lord,  81. 
Mulcaster,  Richard,  206. 
Munday,  Anthony,  82. 
Murray,  J.  T.,  71,  88,  89  n.,  in  n., 

286  n.,  298  n.,  311  n.,  323,  354  n., 

377,  37§- 
Myles,  Ralph,  57. 
Myles,  Robert,  28  n.,  42,  43,  54-58. 

Nash,  Thomas,  10  n.,  69,  84,  114- 

15,  154,  171-73;. 
Neuendorff,  B.,  vii. 
Neville,  Sir  Henry,  95-100,  102  n., 

184. 
Newgate  Market,  122. 
Newington    Butts    Playhouse,    73, 

134-41,  151,  154. 
New  Inn  \  ard.  34,  79. 
Newman,  John,  107-08. 
Nexara,  Duke  of,  130. 
Nicholas,  Basilius,  224. 
Nightingale  Lane,  410-12. 
Noble  Stranger,  The,  373  n. 
Norden,  John,  128  n.,  145. 
Northbrooke,  John,  76. 
Northern  Lass,  The,  404. 
Northup,  Clark  S.,  ix. 
Nottingham,  Charles  Howard,  Earl 

of,  155  n.,  268-70,  272-73.     His 

players,  see  Admiral. 
No  Wit,  No  Help  like  a  Woman's, 

419. 


Ogilby,  John,  294,  417-19. 
Ogilby,  John,  and  William  Morgan, 

294. 
Ogilby's  Dublin  Theatre,  417-10. 
Oldcastle,  404. 
Opera,  365,  425. 
Ordish,  T.  F.,  vii,  48  n.,  341  n. 
Orlando  Furioso,  150. 
Osteler,  William,  225  n.,  237,  260. 
Othello,  367,  387,  388. 
Oxford,  Edward  de  Vere,  Earl  of, 

16,  108-10,  157,  202. 
Oxford's  Company,  16,  87  n.,  157- 

59- 

Palatine.   See  Frederick  V. 

Palladio,  Andrea,  398. 

Pallant,  Robert,  158. 

Palmyra,  265. 

Palsgrave.   See  Frederick  V. 

Palsgrave's    Company.     See   under 

Admiral. 
Pappe  with  an  Hatchet,  112. 
Paris,  Robert  de,  122. 
Paris  Garden.    See  Bear  Garden. 
Paris  Garden,  Manor  of,  121  f.,  135, 

161  f. 
Park,  The,  241. 
Park  Street,  265. 
Parliament  Chamber,  186  f. 
Passionate  Lovers,  The,  404. 
Pastor  all,  The,  401. 
Pavy,  Salmon  (or  Salathiel),  206, 

207. 
Payne,  Robert,  215. 
Peckam,  Edmund,  51-52,  66. 
Pembroke,  William   Herbert,   Earl 

of,  261. 
Pembroke  and  Montgomery,  Philip 

Herbert.  Earl  of,  232. 
Pembroke's  Company,  84,  154-55, 

157,  i7°-75- 
Penruddoks,  Edward,  430. 
Pepys,  Samuel,  17,  207,  308,  338, 

366,  382,  405. 
Perfect  Account,  The,  305. 
Perfect  Occurrences,  304. 
Perkins,  Richard,  158,  380. 
Perrin,  Lady,  184. 
Peyton,  Sir  John,  410. 
Phillips,  Augustine,  62,  73,  84,  224, 

235-41,  260. 
Phillipps,  Sir  Thomas  (his  copy  of 


47° 


INDEX 


Stow's  Annals),  233,  258  n.,  264, 
285  n.,  291,  330  n.,  336,  364, 
381  n. 

Philotas,  216. 

Phoenix  Playhouse.  See  Cockpit 
Playhouse  in  Drury  Lane. 

Pierce,  Edward,  116,  117,  319-20. 

Pierce,  James,  382. 

Pierce,  Mrs.  James,  308,  382. 

Pierce  the  Ploughman's  Creed,  196. 

Piozzi,  Hester  Lynch,  264. 

Pipe  Office,  190  n.,  197. 

Pit  Court,  348  n. 

Plague,  12,  15,  20,  23,  24, 67  n.,  74  n. 
152-53,  159,  215,  222,  223,  224, 
281,  282,  287-88,  316,  355,  356, 

357,  358,  379- 

Playhouse  to  be  Let,  309. 

Playhouse  Yard,  197. 

Plomer,  H.  R.,  293  n. 

Poetaster,  1  n.,  226. 

Pollard,  Thomas,  363. 

Pope  (a  scrivener?),  159. 

Pope,  Alexander,  417. 

Pope,  Morgan,  159  n. 

Pope,  Thomas,  62,73,84,  86, 15971., 
224,  235-41,  260. 

Porter's  Hall.  See  Rosseter's  Black- 
friars  Playhouse. 

Portynary,  Sir  John,  184,  193. 

Pride,  Thomas,  337. 

Prince  Charles  -  2  Red  Bull  Com- 
pany: 

Prince  Charles  I's  Company, 
17,  88,  89,  179,  300,  301-02, 

334-35,    344,    346,   354-55, 
417. 

2  Red  Bull  Company,  301-04. 

Prince  Charles's  (Charles  IPs)  Com- 
pany.   See  under  Admiral,  etc. 

Prince  Henry's  Company.  See  un- 
der Admiral,  etc. 

Prince's  Arms  Inn,  180  «. 

Princess  Elizabeth's  Company,  179, 
321,  324,  332-35,  342,  344,  346, 
354  «-.  355- 

Prynne,  William,  302,  3 10  n.,  372  n. 

Ptolome,  II. 

Puckering,  Sir  Thomas,  254,  389. 

Puddlewharf,  343  f. 

Puiseux,  M.  de,  221  n. 

Puritans,  6,  18-19,  29,  85,  126,  156. 

Pykman,  Phillipp,  206. 


Queen  Anne's  Company.  See  under 

Worcester,  etc. 
Queen's    (Elizabeth's)     Company, 

12,  13,  66-72,  80  7i.,  84,  153. 
Queen's     (Henrietta's)     Company, 

355-56,  379-80,  394,  421,  427. 
Queen's  Revels.  See  under  Children 

of  the  Chapel,  etc. 
Queen's  Street,  348  n. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  126. 
Ram  Alley,  313,  316. 
Randolph,  Thomas,  303,  349. 
Rastell,  William,  213-22. 
Ratcliffe,  352. 
Rathgeb,  Jacob,  132. 

1  Red  Bull  Company.  See  under 
Worcester,  etc. 

2  Red  Bull  Company.  See  under 
Prince  Charles,  etc. 

Red  Bull  Playhouse,  75  n.,  88,  89, 
219  n.,  226  7i.,  287,  294-309,  311 
».,  35i,  353,  353  »•>  356,  374,  378. 

Red  Bull  Yard,  294. 

Redwood,  C.  W.,  ix. 

Reeve,  Ralph,  343. 

Rendle,  William,  12,  124  n.,  143, 
178  n.,  180  n.,  339. 

Reulidge,  Richard,  8,  310  n. 

Revels  Office,  94,  96. 

Reynolds,  G.  F.,  vii. 

Rhodes,  John,  365,  366. 

Richards,  Hugh,  36. 

Richmond,  402,  404. 

Roaring  Girl,  The,  278. 

Roberts,  John,  242. 

Robinson,  James,  205,  213. 

Robinson,  Richard,  304. 

Rochester,  John  Wilmot,  Earl  of, 

34°- 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  85. 
Roper,  Lactantius,  241-42. 
Rosania,  259,  419. 
Rose  Alley,  144,  160  n. 
Rose   Playhouse,  16,  16  n.,  61  w., 

63,  73  *•>  75  »•>  77  »•.  128,  139, 

I4O,     I42-60,     167,     l68     71.,     I74, 
179,   182,  238,  248,  265,  267,  296, 

324,  332  n. 
Rosseter,  Philip,  117,  118,  224,  3 17— 

23,  324-25,  330-32,  335,  342-47- 
Rosseter's    Blackfriars    Playhouse, 

322,  336,  342-47,  355. 


INDEX 


47i 


Rossingham,  Edmond,  288. 

Rowlands,  Samuel,  185  n. 

Roxalana,  406. 

Royal  Master,  The,  419. 

Rump,  The,  382. 

Russell,  Dowager  Lady  Elizabeth, 

199. 
Rutland,  Edward  Manners,  Earl  of, 

36,  36  n.,  37. 
Rutland  House,  364. 
Ryther,  Augustine,  277. 

Sacarson,  121. 

Sackful  of  News,  A.,  10. 

St.  Bride's,  Parish  of,  425  f. 

St.  Dunstan's,  Parish  of,  425  f. 

St.  Giles,  Cripplegate,  268  f. 

St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  355,  362. 

St.  James,  Palace  of,  384,  392. 

St.  James,  Parish  of,  294  f. 

St.  John's  Gate,  294. 

St.  John's  Street,  11,96,  294  f.,  305. 

St.  Mary   Overies,  64-65,    168  n., 

238. 
St.  Mildred,  Parish  of,  143,  159. 
St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  419. 
St.  Paul's  Boys.  See  Children  of  St. 

Paul's. 
St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  29  n.,  167. 
St.  Paul's  Playhouse,  8,  1 1 1-18,  349. 
St.  Saviours,  Parish  of,  145, 170,259. 
St.  Warburg's  Street,  Dublin,  418. 
Salisbury,  Mr.   (portrait  painter), 

366. 
Salisbury,   Robert   Cecil,   Earl  of, 

221. 
Salisbury    Court    Playhouse,    233, 

259,  287,  291,  302,  350,  357  n., 

360  ft.,  364,  368-83,427. 
Sampson,  M.  W.,  279  ft. 
Sandwich,  Edward  Montagu,  Earl 

of,  405. 
Sapho  and  Phao,  109,  113. 
Satiromastix,  332. 
Saunders,  Lady,  343  f. 
Saunders,  Sir  Thomas,  184. 
Savage,  Thomas,  240. 
Scornful  Lady,  The,  403,  406. 
Scott,  Sir  Walter,  310  ft. 
Scuderi,  Georges  de,  421  ft. 
Sellers,  William,  242. 
Shadwcll,  Thomas,  310  n. 
Shakespeare,  William,  62,  63,  65, 


73,  84, 85,  140,  150,  186,  208-10, 

212ft.,  224,  235-41,249,251,261- 

62,  298,  348,  391  n. 
Shanks,  John,  263. 
Sharp,  Lewis,  373  n. 
Sharpham,  Edward,  316. 
Shatterel,  Edward,  304-05,  308. 
Shaw,  Robert,  168,  172-74. 
Sherlock,  William,  380. 
Shirley,  James,  259,  349,  376,  377, 

406  n.,  419. 
Shoreditch,  30,  78,  185. 
Sibthorpe,  Edward,  315. 
Siege  of  Rhodes,  The,  364. 
Silent  Woman,  The,  319,  405. 
Silver,  George,  13  n.,  194-95. 
Silver,  Thomas,  381,  383. 
Singer,  John,  235  n. 
Sir  Francis  Drake,  364. 
Sir  Giles  Goosecappe,  373. 
Skevington,  Richard,  172. 
Skialetheia,  46,  61. 
Slaiter,  Martin,  315,  317-18. 
Slye,  William,  224,  225  ft.,  235  ft., 

260. 
Smallpiece,  Thomas,  108. 
Smith,  Isack,  366. 
Smith,  John,  351  ft. 
Smith,  Captain  John,  369  fl. 
Smith,  Wentworth,  158. 
Smith,  William,  63. 
Smithfield,  332. 
Somerset  House,  404. 
Sophocles,  398. 
Soulas,  Josias  de,  420-24. 
Spanish  Ambassador,  281,  339. 
Spanish  Curate,  The,  404. 
Spanish  Tragedy,  The,  150,  261. 
Sparagus  Garden,  The,  379. 
Sparks,  Thomas,  285  n. 
Speed,  John,  265. 
Spencer,  Gabriel,  168, 172-74,  235  n, 
Spiller,  Sir  Henry,  230. 
Spykes  School,  206. 
Squire  of  Alsatia,  The,  310  n. 
Stanley,  Ferdinando,  Lord  Strange. 

See  Derby. 
Star  of  the  West,  133. 
Steevens,  George,  77-78. 
Stepney  Field,  352. 
Stettin-Pomerania,    Philip    Julius, 

Duke  of,  207,  214-15. 
Stevens,  John,  183. 


472 


INDEX 


Stockwood,  John,  8,  26,  46,  48. 

Stone,  George,  121. 

Stopes,  Charlotte  C,  361  n. 

Stoughton,  Robert,  36. 

Stow,  John,  124,  136,  166,  348,  388, 
391.  See  also  Howes,  Phillipps, 
and  Strype. 

Strafford,  Thomas  Wentworth,  Earl 
of,  417-18. 

Strange,  Lord.  See  Derby. 

Strange  -  Derby  -  1  Chamberlain  - 
Hunsdon  -  2  Chamberlain  -  King 
James  I  -  King  Charles  I's  Com- 
pany: 

Strange's  Company,   14,   139, 

I50-S4- 
Derby's  Company,  73,  87  n., 

153- 

1  Chamberlain's       Company, 
H-I5,  150,  153-54- 

Hunsdon's      Company,      199, 
199  n. 

2  Chamberlain's  Company,  16, 

61, 61  n.,  62, 68  n.,  73-74,  84, 
85,  150,  154-55,  159  «-i  174- 
75,  176,  200,  209  n.,  212  n., 
235-38,    249,    267,    272-73, 
.351- 
King  James  I's  Company,  88, 
118,    223-27,    250-62,    295, 
320-21,  324,  325,  374. 
King    Charles    I's    Company, 
227-33,    262-63,    302,    365, 
374,  378,  400,  401,  402. 
Street,  Peter,  63,  64,  239,  269,  273- 

74- 
Strype,  John,  243,  340,  391,  408  n. 
Stubbes,  Philip,  83,  125. 
Stutville,  George,  374. 
Summer  playhouse,  67-68,  225,  250, 

321,  324,  325,  342.       . 
Sumner,  John,  380. 
Sussex's  Company,  152. 
Swan  Inn,  180  n. 
Swan  Playhouse,  77  n.,  84,  154-55, 

161-81,  182,  238,  273,  321,  324, 

326,  327,  329,  334,  342-43. 
Swanston,  Eilliard,  400. 
Swinerton,  Sir  John,  321. 
Swynnerton,  Thomas,  296. 

Taming  of  a  Shrew,  The,  140. 
Tarbock,  John,  318. 


Tarleton,  Richard,   12,   13,   14  n., 

67,  69,  72,  72  n.,  235,  298. 
Tarlton's  Jests,  13. 
Tarlton's  News  out  of  Purgatory,  69, 
75- 

Tatham,  John,  289,  303  n.,  382. 

Taylor,  John  (the  Water  Poet), 
251,  257,  259,  329,  332-34. 

Taylor,  Joseph,  363,  400. 

Taylor,  Robert,  320. 

Theatre  Playhouse,  8,  10,  11  n.,  15, 
26,  27-74,  75,  76,  77,  78,  83,  84, 
91,  112,  135,  138,  154,  155,  167, 
172  n.,  182,  199,  200,  234-35, 
239,  244,  249. 

Thespis,  398. 

Thoresby,  Henry,  410. 

Thorndike,  A.  H.,  vii. 

Thrale,  Mrs.  Henry,  264. 

Three  Kings  Ordinary,  425,  429, 
430. 

Tilney,  Edmund,  66,  85. 

Titus  Andronicus,  140,  152. 

Tomlins,  T.  E.,  76. 

Tom  Tell  Troth's  Message,  146. 

Tooley,  Nicholas,  350  n. 

Topclyfe,  Richard,  172-73. 

Totenham  Court,  373. 

Toy,  The,  419. 

Trevell,  William,  315. 

Trompeur  Puni,  Le,  421. 

Trussell,  Alvery,  206. 

Tunstall,  James,  350  n. 

Turk,  The,  316. 

Turner,  178. 

Turner,  Anthony,  308,  380. 

Turnor,  Richard,  50. 

Two  Maids  of  Moreclacke,  The,  316. 

Underwood,  John,  86. 
Unfortunate  Lovers,  The,  233,  404. 
University  of  Illinois,  277  n. 

Vaghan,  Edward,  410. 
Valient  Cid,  The,  406. 
Vaughan,  Sir  William,  125. 
Venetian  Ambassador,  280. 
Vennar,  Richard,  177-78,  333  n. 
Vere,  Lady  Susan,  392. 
Verneuil,  Madame  de,  220-21. 
Vertue,  George,  387  n.,  396. 
Virgin,  performance  by  a,  74  n. 
Visscher,  C.  J.,  127,   128,   146  n., 


INDEX 


473 


164-65,  248,  253,  328,  328  n., 

329- 
Volpone,  404. 
Vox  Graculi,  89. 
Vuolfio,  Giovanni.   See  John  Wolf. 

Walker,  Thomas,  337. 

Wallace,  C.  W.,  ix,  67,  71,  no  «., 
115, 117, 140, 148 n.,  iGon.,  168  n., 
170  n.,  177  n.,  178  n.,  179  n., 
192  n.,  196  n.,  197,  197  n.,  201  «., 
204  n.,  208,  212  n.,  215  «.,  221  w., 
243,  248-49,  258  n.,  259  n.,  266, 
285  *.,  353  «; 

Walsingham,  Sir  Francis,  no. 

Warburton,  John,  369  n. 

War  of  the  Theatres,  250. 

Warwick,  Ambrose  Dudley,  Earl 
of,  12. 

Water  Lane,  Blackfriars,  98,  102. 

Water  Lane,  Whitefriars,  371. 

Way  to  Content  all  Women,  or  How 
a  Man  May  Please  his  Wife,  368- 
69. 

Webster,  John,  116,  158,  226  n. 

Weekly  Account,  The,  290. 

Weekly  Intelligencer,  The,  306,  307. 

Westcott,  Sebastian,  113. 

Westminster  Cathedral,  126,  167. 

Westminster  School,  206. 

What  You  Will,  112. 

Whitaker,  Laurence,  230. 

White,  Thomas,  48,  76. 

Whitechapel,  8  n.,  17. 

Whitechapel  Street,  7. 

Whitecross  Street,  268  f. 

White  Devil,  The,  226  n. 

Whitefriars  Playhouse,  8,  117,  224, 
310-23,  324,  342-43,  368  n. 

Whitehall,  356  n.,  374,  384  f.,  387- 
91,  403. 

White  Hart  Inn,  1. 

Whitelock,  Bulstrode,  305. 

Whitton,  Tom,  382. 

Wigpitt,  Thomas,  285  n. 

Wilbraham,  172. 

Wilbraham,  William,  374. 

Wilkinson,  Nicholas,  350  n. 

Wilkinson,  R.,  259  n.,  293  n. 

Williams,  John,  412-17. 

Williamson,  Joseph,  306. 

Wilson,  J.  D.,  76  n. 


Wilson,  Robert,  12,  176. 
Winchester,   Bishop  of,    119,    134, 

241  n. 
Windsor,  384.   See  also  Children  of 

Windsor  Chapel. 
Winter  playhouse,  67-68,  225,  233, 

250,  321,  324,  325,  342. 
Wintershall,  William,  308. 
Winwood,  Sir  Ralph,  252,  392. 
Wirtemberg,  Duke  of,  132. 
Witch  of  Edmonton,  The,  354  n. 
Witt,  Johannes  de,  77  n.,  146  «., 

165-68,  273. 
Witter,  John,  224,  258. 
Wit  Without  Money,  304. 
Wolf,  John,  410-12. 
Wolf's  Theatre,  410-12. 
Wolsey,  Cardinal,  186,  252,  391. 
Woman  is  a  Weathercock,  A,   140, 

342  n. 
Wood,  Anthony  a,  418. 
Woode,  Tobias,  410. 
Woodford,  Thomas,  311,  313,  314, 

322. 
Woodman,  193. 
Woodward,  142. 
Woodward,  Agnes,  142-43,  283. 
Woodward  Joan,  ix,  151. 
Worcester  College,  395. 
Worcester-Queen-i  Red  Bull-Child- 
ren of  the  Revels  Company: 
Worcester's  Company,  16,  72, 

87,  157-59,  295,  35 1- 
Queen  Anne's   Company,    16, 
87,   88,   158,  295-300,   351, 

353- 

1  Red  Bull  Company,  300-01. 

Children  of  the  Revels,  301. 
Wordsworth,  William,  299. 
Wotton,  Sir  Henry,  251,  320. 
Wright,  George  R.,  401. 
Wright,  James,  285,  297,  303,  304, 

350,  363.  373- 
Wyngaerde,  A.  van  den,  124. 

Yarmouth,  45  n. 

York  House,  391. 

Young,  John,  374. 

Younger  Brother,  The,  299. 

Young  Gallant's  Whirligig,  The,  356. 

Zanche,  Lord,  184. 


^4S3  5 


1  A     TMtr     - 

RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO— ■+►      202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


^L. 


3  1    1QQ' 


APR  2  8  1983    7 


EEC.  OR.  MS    fe^Q 


rec'rfcirc.  jun  Q5  19(3 


NOV    5Kmn 


2_ 


RECEIVED  B 


VJbO 


RECEIVED 


BY 


\Tio.N  r; 


JUN  2  4 


DO 


JUL 


CIRCULATION 


DEPT. 


Tiu^i 


mi 

RECEIVED  BV 


SEP  3  a  rg<rt 


CIRCULATION  DEPT 


CPJWBSWSPBfUFO^NIA^  BERKELEY 


FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  3/80  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


©$ 


GENERAL  LIBRARY -U.C.BERKELEY 


80007=1706^ 


